TAMARA LYNN WALT, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES LEE WALT, 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 order because the necessary transcripts or stipulated statements of evidence were not provided, making it impossible to review the issues on appeal.
The trial court deferred jurisdiction to a Mississippi court in a child custody case. The appellate court ordered supplemental records, including tran…
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 Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
Tamara Lynn Walt appeals an order entered after remand of this child custody case1 wherein the trial court deferred to the jurisdiction of the Mississippi court. As a basis for the appealed order, the trial court relied on evidence presented at a May 1990 hearing on the husband’s request for custody of the child and relief from the order staying the writ of habeas corpus pending appellate review, but that proceeding was not included in the record on appeal. Accordingly, we ordered the parties to supplement the record with a transcript of the May 1990 hearing as well as the transcript of the May 1991 hearing that led to the appealed order. This court’s order further provided that should such transcripts not be available, stipulated statements of the evidence filed in compliance with Fla.R.App.P. 9.200(b)(4) would be accepted in lieu of the transcripts.
The parties represent that neither hearing was reported by a court reporter. The appellant mother did not file a stipulated statement of the evidence presented at the May 1991 hearing. The father filed a “stipulated statement of evidence” that purports to reflect the evidence presented at the May 1990 hearing, but that statement was not fully agreed to by appellant’s counsel and has not been approved by the trial court as required by the rule. Accordingly, we reject this statement for failure to comply with Rule 9.200(b)(4).
Because the issues on appeal cannot be decided without reviewing the evidence requested in our order to supplement the record, the appealed order must be affirmed. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1989).
AFFIRMED.
WIGGINTON, J„ concurs.
JOANOS, C.J., concurs specially in result only.
. See Walt v. Walt, 574 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Dorsett v. Granvill Dorsett, 902 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…., 831 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)(“As it is not a part of the record but merely attached to appel-lee's brief, this Court cannot review the document on appeal.”); see also Burke v. Burke, 864 So. 2d 1284, 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Walt v. Walt, 596 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). .But see Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (treating the lack of adequate findings as an unpreserved error unless previously brought to the trial court's attention); Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584 (…
-
Babooram Sugrim v. Sumattee Sugrim, 649 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…e is no basis to overturn the final judgment of dissolution. Issues concerning evidentiary sufficiency and the like are not reviewable where no transcript of the trial proceedings or stipulated statement of evidence exists. See, e.g., Walt v. Walt, 596 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Carter v. Carter, 504 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). An error which appears on the face of the final judgment, however, is reviewable. See Florida Public Service Commission v. Pruitt, Humphress, Powers & Munroe Advertising Agen…
-
Seal Prods. v. Mansfield, 705 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); Larjim Mgmt. Corp. v. Capital Bank, 554 So. 2d 587, 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Crusaw v. Crusaw, 637 So. 2d 949, 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); State, Department of HRS v. Christman, 635 So. 2d 94, 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Walt v. Walt, 596 So. 2d 761, 762 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Dinn v. Haynes, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1621, (Fla. 4th DCA July 2, 1997); Balsam v. South Palm Beach Fin. Corp., 695 So. 2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Those cases have no application here. See also Ronbeck Constr. Co., Inc…
Previewing 3 of 14 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)
- Walt v. Walt, 574 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)