TAMRE G. HOOVER, F/K/A TAMRE G. SPRECHER, APPELLANT,
v.
NEAL BARRY SPRECHER, 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.
In this family law appeal, the former wife challenged the trial court's denial of attorney's fees and costs awards in a child support modification proceeding. The appellate court affirmed the denial because the appellant failed to provide an adequate record on appeal, lacking transcripts of critical hearings and providing only conflicting statements of the evidence.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees because the record on appeal was inadequate to demonstrate reversible error, as no transcripts were made of the evidentiary hearings and the parties submitted conflicting accounts of facts rather than an agreed statement of evidence.
[1] The standard of review for an order denying attorney's fees is whether the trial court abused its discretion.
[2] An appellate court cannot find an abuse of discretion in denying attorney's fees when the record is inadequate to review the trial court's decision.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.”
Establishes the standard of review and the burden of proof on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo evidentiary hearings were conducted in December 1990 and March 1991, with no transcripts made. The trial court increased child support in an April…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Trial Court Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
The former Wife appealed the orders of the trial court denying her request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. The standard of review of an order denying attorney’s fees is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Lord v. Lord, 566 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Deakyne v. Deakyne, 460 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Because of the lack of an adequate record to review, we have no basis on which to find that the lower tribunal abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s motions for attorney’s fees. Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 588 So. 2d 20, 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Starks v. Starks, 423 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, we affirm.
An evidentiary hearing was conducted on December 12, 1990, and was continued on March 20, 1991. No transcript was made of either hearing. In its Order On All Pending Motions, filed on April 1, 1991, the trial court increased the amount of child support to be paid to the former Wife by Appellee, the former Husband. Appellant’s request for attorney’s fees was denied. Appellant moved for rehearing on several issues, including attorney’s fees. No court reporter was present at the resulting hearing held on May 28, 1991. In its Order On Former Wife’s Motion For Rehearing, filed on June 17, 1991, the trial court recalculated the amount due for child support but denied the former Wife’s motion in all other respects, including the request for attorney’s fees.
Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979), stands for the well-established proposition that “[i]n appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of corrects ness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.” In that cause, as in the case sub judice, we, as the reviewing court, lacked the benefit of a trial transcript or a proper substitute. Reviewing our decision, which had reversed the trial court’s imposition of a constructive trust, the Florida Supreme Court stated that the trial court’s decision should have been affirmed because the record provided by the appellant was “inadequate to demonstrate reversible error.” Id. Cf. Holmes v. Holmes, 578 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (despite absence of a transcript or a stipulated or reconstructed record, appellate court reversed a “facially erroneous” dissolution judgment).
We are faced with the same problem here. Fla.R.App.P. 9.200(e) places the burden on the appellant “to ensure that the record is prepared and transmitted in accordance with these rules.” The parties attempted to comply with the alternative provisions set forth in Rule 9.200(b)(4) for proposed statements or partial statements of the evidence and submitted conflicting accounts of facts raised at hearing. Based on its understandable inability to recall all the testimony that had been presented, the trial court was unwilling to agree on the Motion For Settlement and Approval Of The Statement Of Evidence. Given the circumstances presented here, we cannot agree with Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in declining to accept the parties’ conflicting statements of fact. Clayton v. Clayton, 442 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
AFFIRMED.
SMITH and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Schwass, 622 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4), which provides the procedure for establishing a statement of the evidence or proceedings when no transcript is available. See Walt v. Walt, 596 So. 2d 761, 762 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); See also Hoover v. Sprecher, 610 So. 2d 99, 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Wright v. Wright, 431 So. 2d 177, 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Accordingly, I would reject the document proffered by appellant and conclude that the record on appeal in this case contains neither a transcript of the hearing nor…
-
Tennyson v. Marylee Tennyson, 752 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979); Hoover v. Sprecher, 610 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). ERVIN, BOOTH and WOLF, JJ., CONCUR.…
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Starks v. Starks, 423 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Deakyne v. Deakyne, 460 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Clayton v. Ruthe Lee Clayton, 442 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Holmes v. Alberta Holmes, 578 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 588 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Lord v. Carter Lord, 566 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)