JOSEPH F. MORGAN AND JOHNNIE M. MORGAN FLESHMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
S. LEE PAKE, JR. AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
Appellants sought review of two consolidated summary judgment orders, one in favor of Allstate Insurance Company on a third-party claim and one in favor of S. Lee Pake, Jr., on a counterclaim. The court affirmed both judgments because appellants failed to include critical depositions in the appellate record despite being ordered to supplement it.
The appellate court affirmed both summary judgments because appellants failed to include critical depositions in the appellate record. The court held that it could not determine reversible error due to the incomplete record.
[1] An appellant bears the responsibility to ensure that the appellate record contains all materials necessary for review of the issues raised.
[2] An appellate court cannot find reversible error when the appellant fails to provide a complete record of the evidence considered by the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is the responsibility of the appellant to ensure that a record adequate to permit resolution of the issues raised on appeal is prepared and transmitted to the appellate court.”
Establishes the fundamental procedural requirement that appellants must provide a complete record 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 summary judgment orders were entered against appellants: one favoring Allstate Insurance Company on appellants' third-party claim, and another fav…
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
PER CURIAM.
In these two consolidated appeals, appellants seek review of two summary final judgments entered against them, the first in favor of appellee Allstate Insurance Company on appellants’ third-party claim; and the second in favor of appellee S. Lee Pake, Jr., on appellants’ counterclaim. Upon our initial review of the record on appeal, it was apparent that several critical depositions from which the parties had quoted during argument before the trial court on the summary judgment motions were not included in the record. Accordingly, we ordered appellants to supplement the record so that it included all depositions which had been presented to the trial court for consideration prior to the entry of the two summary judgments which are the subjects of these appeals. Although appellants have had ample time to comply with our order, they have failed to do so.
It is the responsibility of the appellant to ensure that a record adequate to permit resolution of the issues raised on appeal is prepared and transmitted to the appellate court. Fla.R.App.P. 9.200(e); Brice v. State, 419 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 2d DCA1982). Decisions of the trial court come to this court clothed in a presumption of correctness. It is the appellant’s burden to establish the existence of reversible error. Because appellants have failed to include in the record on appeal all depositions which were before the trial court when it decided the motions for summary judgment, we are unable to say that the trial court committed reversible error. See, e.g., Butler v. Metropolitan Dade County, 298 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA1974); Edwards v. Trulis, 212 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA1968). Therefore, we are constrained to affirm.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darrel Duane Cyrus v. Cyrus, 324 So. 3d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…)). Here, Appellant failed to supply a transcript of the hearing on his motion to dismiss. It is Appellant’s responsibility to ensure that an adequate record to resolve the issues raised on appeal is provided to the appellate court. Morgan v. Pake, 611 So. 2d 1315, 1316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Fla. R. App. P. 9.200(e).2 Without a 1 Pursuant to section 790.233(1), Florida Statutes (2020), a person “may not have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any firearm or ammunition if the person has been i…
-
Watson v. Truman Hahn, 664 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…ummary judgment hearing, which support his version of the facts. But they are not in the record on appeal, nor are they referred to by the trial judge as having formed the basis for his ruling. That alone distinguishes this case from Morgan v. Poke, 611 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We conclude the summary judgment in Hahn’s favor must be reversed and this cause remanded because the record demonstrates there are material issues of fact which should be resolved by the fact-finder. This is not an appropriate…
-
Glenn v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 731 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…. 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”); Morgan v. Pake, 611 So. 2d 1315, 1316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(stating that it is the responsibility of the appellant to ensure that a record adequate to permit resolution of the issues raised on appeal is [*872] prepared and transmitted to the appellate court). As argued by the Unem…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Edwards v. Trulis, 212 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Butler v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 298 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Brice v. State, 419 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)