CAROLINA HUSSING, ET AL.
v.
SEGAL ZUCKERMAN, P.A.
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 Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment against appellants Carolina Hussing and others in a dispute with Segal Zuckerman, P.A., finding that appellants failed to provide an adequate record for appellate review of the underlying factual issues.
The appellants' appeal was affirmed because they failed to provide the appellate court with an adequate record sufficient to review the matters assigned on appeal.
“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.”
Establishes the foundational principle that a complete record is necessary for appellate review of factual matters.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe opinion does not detail the underlying facts of the case, as it is a per curiam affirmance focused on procedural deficiencies.…
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 Record Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“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.”); Shojaie v. Gables Pro. Ctr., 974 So. 2d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“’It is the responsibility and duty of the appellant to provide the appellate court with a record sufficient to review the matter assigned.’” (quoting Gleim v. Gleim, 176 So. 2d 610, 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965))); see also Portner v. Koppel, 382 So. 3d 742, 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (holding that an appellate court reviews factual findings of counsel’s authority to settle a case on behalf of a client for substantial, competent evidence).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shohrie Shojaie v. Gables Court Prof'l Ctr., Inc., 974 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Carpenter v. State, 176 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Cary Portner v. Gil Koppel and Aleksandra Koppel, 382 So. 3d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)