RICHARD THOMAS MEAD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEBRA DELANEY MEAD, 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 awards of alimony and retirement funds but reversed and remanded decisions on child support and debt allocation due to insufficient findings. The lack of a hearing transcript prevented a full review of the husband's claims.
The appellate court affirmed the awards of alimony and retirement funds because the absence of a transcript precluded review. However, it reversed and remanded the child support and debt allocation portions due to a lack of necessary findings.
[1] The absence of a transcript of a final hearing precludes appellate review of claims of error regarding awards made at the hearing.
[2] A party seeking to demonstrate reversible error on appeal bears the burden of providing a record sufficient for intelligent review.
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 trial court’s judgment comes here clothed in a presumption of correctness, and it is the former husband’s burden to demonstrate reversible error.”
Establishes the standard of review and the burden on the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, but no transcript of the final hearing was available. The appellate court cou…
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 Scheme cases and more on FLexlaw
WEBSTER, J.
The former husband seeks review of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He raises a number of issues. However, the record contains no transcript of the final hearing because no court reporter was present. The trial court’s judgment comes here clothed in a presumption of correctness, and it is the former husband’s burden to demonstrate reversible error. Chirino v. Chirino, 710 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The absence of a transcript precludes intelligent review of the former husband’s claims that the trial court erred when it awarded permanent periodic alimony and a portion of his retirement fund with the Jacksonville Electric Authority to the former wife. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979). Accordingly, we affirm those awards.
We cannot, however, discern from the judgment why the trial court ordered the former husband to pay what appears to be substantially more than the presumptive guidelines child support amount and a portion of the Citibank debt, or why it directed that the former wife receive credit for all principal payments made by her toward the mortgage, as well as all ad valorem taxes paid, upon the sale of the marital home.
Accordingly, we vacate those portions of the judgment, and remand for further consideration.
The trial court shall include in its decision on remand the findings mandated by sections 61.075(3) (relating to distribution of assets and liabilities) and 61.30(l)(a) (relating to deviations from the presumptive guidelines child support amount), Florida Statutes (1997), so that intelligent appellate review will be possible. Should the trial court alter any of these awards on remand, it will be necessary for it to reexamine all of the other financial aspects of the final judgment, including the award of permanent periodic ali mony and the equitable distribution scheme. See Hanrahan v. Hanrahan, 618 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
ALLEN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Eneida Chirino v. Chirino, 710 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Hanrahan v. Hanrahan, 618 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)