MOUSA ALZIRGHANI, FORMER HUSBAND
v.
SHAIMAA ALGABAH, FORMER WIFE
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 a final judgment of dissolution because the appellant failed to provide a sufficient record and did not preserve his arguments for appeal. The court emphasized the presumption of correctness afforded to trial court judgments.
The appellate court could not review the equitable distribution due to the missing transcript. The facial deficiency argument was not preserved because it was not raised in the trial court. Therefore, no reversible error was demonstrated.
[1] A party challenging a trial court's equitable distribution in a dissolution judgment must include a trial transcript in the appellate record to support claims of abuse of…
[2] Facial deficiencies in a final order must be preserved for appellate review by raising them in a motion for rehearing or other appropriate motion in the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The final judgment of dissolution on review comes to us with “the presumption of correctness,” so the former husband, as the appellant, bears the burden of demonstrating reversible error.”
Establishes the standard of review and the appellant's burden.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband appealed a final judgment of dissolution. He failed to include a transcript of the hearing in the appellate record and did not rais…
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 Burden Of Demonstrating Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment of dissolution on review comes to us with “the presumption of correctness,” so the former husband, as the appellant, bears the burden of demonstrating reversible error. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). The husband failed to include in the record a transcript of the hearing that led to the final judgment, so we are unable to address his argument that the trial court abused its discretion when it crafted the equitable distribution between the parties. See id. (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”).
That leaves us with the former husband’s contention that the judgment is facially deficient. Cf. Klette v. Klette, 785 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (explaining “that the lack of a transcript is not fatal” where “reversible error is apparent from the face of the order on appeal”). However, the former husband failed to raise the deficiency with the trial court in a motion for rehearing, so even that issue is not preserved for our review. See Williams v. Williams, 152 So. 3d 702, 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (explaining that “where an error by the court appears for the first time on the face of a final order, a party must alert the court of the error via a motion for rehearing or some other appropriate motion in order to preserve it for appeal”).
AFFIRMED.
WINOKUR, NORDBY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Klette v. Klette, 785 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Williams v. Williams, 152 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)