DANIEL MIGUEL, ET AL.
v.
JORGE J. MIGUEL, ETC.
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 trial court's decision, emphasizing the importance of a hearing transcript for meaningful appellate review. The court cited precedent establishing a de novo standard for reviewing summary judgment orders and noted that issues not raised in the lower court are generally waived on appeal.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. The absence of a transcript was a significant impediment to review, and issues not preserved in the lower court are deemed waived.
[1] The standard of review for an order granting summary judgment is de novo.
[2] A transcript of a summary judgment hearing is not necessary for appellate review, as the hearing involves legal argument, not the taking of evidence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 most salient impediment to meaningful review of the trial court's decision is not the absence of findings, but the absence of a transcript.”
This quote highlights the critical importance of a hearing transcript for the appellate court's ability to review the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants sought review of a trial court's order granting summary judgment. The primary impediment to the appellate court's review was the absenc…
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 Merger Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) (providing that the standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo); Seal Prods. v. Mansfield, 705 So. 2d 973, 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“[T]he hearing on the motion for summary judgment consists of the legal argument of counsel, not the taking of evidence.
Consequently, it is not necessary to procure a transcript of the summary judgment hearing, although it is permissible and often helpful to do so." (internal citations omitted)); Hardison v. Bank of New York Mellon, 399 So. 3d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“The most salient impediment to meaningful review of the trial court's decision is not the absence of findings, but the absence of a transcript.” (quoting Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261, 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007))); In re Wells, 259 B.R. 776, 779 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2001) (“The merger doctrine is applicable where either the entire beneficial interest passes to the trustee or where the legal title passes to a sole beneficiary. Upon merger of the legal and equitable titles, the holder of both interests possesses fee simple ownership of the property." (internal citations omitted)); J.T.A. Factors, Inc. v. Philcon Servs., Inc., 820 So. 2d 367, 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“As a general rule, it is not appropriate for a party to raise an issue for the first time on appeal. . . .
Thus, because these claimed errors were not preserved before the trial court, they are deemed waived.").
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hansen v. Bothe, 10 So. 3d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
Authorities Cited
- Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- J.T.A. Factors, Inc. v. Philcon Servs., Inc., 820 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Seal Prods. v. Mansfield, 705 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)