RALPH LEONARD, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM LAWSON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment because the appellant failed to provide a sufficient record to demonstrate reversible error.
Appellant sued appellee over a joint business venture. The trial was held without a court reporter, and the trial court entered a judgment for the app…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1189] PER CURIAM.
Appellant Ralph Leonard sued appellee William Lawson to recover money owed him from a joint business venture involving the importation and sale of foreign automobiles and parts. Lawson filed a counterclaim for monies owed him by Leonard.
The case was tried by the court without a jury or a court reporter. Final judgment was entered for Lawson for $11,136.04. After denial of all post trial motions, Leonard instituted this appeal. Since no transcript of the testimony was available the parties stipulated to certain facts and then appellant attempted to have the court reconstruct the evidence pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 9.200(b)(3). However, the parties could not agree on the testimony and the court stated he could not remember the details of the testimony sufficiently to recollect how he arrived at the amount of the final judgment.
Leonard has a theory on how the trial court arrived at the amount of the judgment, but Lawson contends Leonard’s theory is pure speculation and we agree. As this court said in Haist v. Sharp, 351 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), aff’d 366 So. 2d 402 (Fla.1978), a party takes a gamble in going to trial without a court reporter. The gamble may backfire when the court is unable to recreate the record.
Under the circumstances, appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cronin v. State, 366 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1978)
- Melval C. Haist v. Scarp, 351 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Ab Rosen v. Selma Bauman, 351 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)