JAMES P. D'ANGELO, APPELLANT,
v.
RACHEL A. D'ANGELO, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a final dissolution judgment, rejecting the appellant's claim for a new trial based on lost court reporter's notes and finding no abuse of discretion in the equitable distribution of marital assets or attorney's fees award.
A party seeking a new trial due to lost court reporter's notes must comply with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4) by preparing a statement of evidence, and absent evidence of complex technical matters impossible to reconstruct, the loss does not mandate reversal.
[1] A party challenging a judgment due to lost court reporter's notes must comply with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4) by preparing a statement of the evidenc…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage case, the court reporter's notes from the final hearing were stolen. The trial court entered a final judgment distributin…
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 Equitable Distribution Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm. Appellant claims, among other things, that he is entitled to a new trial due to the theft of the court reporter’s notes of a final dissolution hearing. Appellant misplaces his reliance on Van Scoyoc v. York, 173 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert, denied, 179 So. 2d 214 (Fla.1965), where the loss of a portion of a court reporter’s notes required a new trial because the case presented evidence of a complex and technical nature which was impossible to reconstruct for appellate purposes. In contrast, appellant made no effort to prepare a statement of the evidence or trial proceedings as provided in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4), and we find his excuse for not exercising this available remedy unpersuasive.
The extensive findings of fact contained in the final judgment and the partial record furnished on appeal show that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its equitable distribution of the marital assets or in its determination that appellant should pay one-half of appellee’s attorney’s fees. We also hold that appellant has failed to demonstrate error in the remaining points raised in this appeal. Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed in all respects.
AFFIRMED.
DELL, C.J., and WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- van Scoyoc v. Verdye Umstad York and Charlotte Paget, 173 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Simon v. Freitag, 179 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1965)
- Trepanier v. State, 179 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1965)