JOSEPH NOVOM, APPELLANT,
v.
THELMA D. NOVOM, 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 court affirmed the dissolution judgment awarding the former wife the marital home, permanent alimony, arrearages, and attorney's fees because the appellant failed to provide a court reporter's transcript, preventing meaningful appellate review of any claimed abuse of discretion.
An appellate court cannot review claims of abuse of discretion in a dissolution judgment when the appellant fails to provide a court reporter's transcript of the final hearing.
[1] Appellate review of discretionary awards in dissolution proceedings is precluded when the appellant fails to provide a court reporter's transcript of the final hearing, a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph Novom appealed a final judgment dissolving his marriage to Thelma D. Novom, challenging awards of his one-half interest in the marital home, $5…
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 Reconstruction Of Record cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a pro se appeal brought by the former husband Joseph Novom from a fi nal judgment of marriage dissolution. He complains that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the former wife Thelma D. Novom (1) his one-half interest in the marital home, (2) permanent alimony in the amount of $500 per month, (3) $5,700 in temporary alimony arrearages, and (4) attorney’s fees and costs.
We affirm the final judgment under review because, simply stated, there is no record of the final hearing in this cause and the final judgment does not on its face reveal an abuse of discretion in these awards. The parties are in considerable disagreement as to the nature of the evidence adduced below, and were not able to reconstruct the record of the final hearing under Fla.R.App.P. 9.200(a)(3), 9.200(b)(3), after the former husband failed to include a court reporter’s transcript of said hearing. Under these circumstances, we have no authority to upset any of the above-stated awards. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); Glace & Radcliffe, Inc. v. City of Live Oak, 471 So. 2d 144, 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Pape v. Pape, 444 So. 2d 1058, 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Wright v. Wright, 431 So. 2d 177, 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Lambert v. Lambert, 340 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. Juanza Perkins and John R. Perkins, 723 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ence of a record of the evidence considered by the trial court in making this award, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion and must therefore affirm. See Girtman v. Girtman, 693 So. 2d 631, 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Novom v. Novom, 513 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Affirmed.…
-
Schmidt v. Drew D. Schmidt, 997 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…ere a statement of the record has not been prepared, a judgment which is not fundamentally erroneous on its face must be affirmed.”); see also Marshall, 953 So. 2d at 25; Mayfield v. Mayfield, 929 So. 2d 671, 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Novom v. Novom, 513 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). In doing so, we find no error in the trial court’s rulings concerning the distribution of the money market account funds, [*453] the resolution of the issues relating to the aborted purchase of the Bradenton residence, the a…
-
Manicia Chatman v. London, 579 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…ailed to file a stipulated statement of the evidence and proceedings pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). Because the order on its face does not reveal any abuse of discretion, we affirm the award of fees. See Novom v. Novom, 513 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Affirmed. THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Wright v. Huretta Moss Wright, 431 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Pape v. Pape, 444 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Glace & Radcliffe, Inc. v. City OF Live OAK, 471 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Lambert v. Lambert, 340 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)