ROBERT N. PRYMUS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
ANNMARIE DUNCAN PRYMUS, 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 husband challenges the trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs to the former wife in the dissolution of marriage proceeding. The appellate court affirms the award, finding no abuse of discretion and noting the appellant's failure to provide a transcript of the hearing.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees and costs. The judgment is presumed correct, and the appellant bore the burden of demonstrating error but failed to provide a transcript of the final hearing, preventing meaningful appellate review.
[1] An award of attorney's fees and costs in a final judgment of dissolution is presumed correct on appeal when the appellant fails to provide a transcript or proper substitu…
[2] The presumption of correctness attaching to a trial court's final judgment remains intact when the appellant fails to demonstrate error through a complete appellate recor…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 foundational principle that appellants must overcome the presumption of correctness of trial court decisions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA trial court issued a final judgment of dissolution awarding attorney's fees and costs to the former wife. The general master had previously recommen…
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 Appellant'S Burden To Demonstrate Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The former husband appeals the final judgment of dissolution wherein the trial court overruled the general master’s recommendation of a denial of attorney’s fees and costs to the former wife and taxed him with such fees and costs.
We note that the former husband has not provided us with a transcript, or proper substitute of the final hearing below.
Moreover, based upon our review of the record, an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the final judgment does not appear to be erroneous on its face.
Accordingly, the presumption of correctness which attaches to this final judgment remains intact and we can find no abuse of discretion in this regard. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) (holding that “[i]n appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.”); Brancaccio v. Jackal Corp., 641 So. 2d 114, 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)(trial court’s denial of plaintiffs’ request for new trial was presumed correct where plaintiffs failed to provide transcript of proceedings below and, thus, the appellate court was unable to determine whether contents of unadmit-ted notes and drawings taken into jury room were important enough to issues of case to require new trial); In re Guardianship of Read, 555 So. 2d 869, 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)(providing that “[s]ince the court’s order was not erroneous on its face and the correctness of the trial court’s ruling depended not only on Mrs. Kene-fick’s written records but also upon evidence presented at the hearing but not furnished to us, we must affirm.”).
Affirmed.
JORGENSON and GREEN, JJ., concur.
COPE, J.
(concurring).
I agree, but note that the wording of the trial court’s order is “[t]hat the Court hereby reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to be taxed against Robert N. Prymus, Jr.” Under this order, the question of what the husband has the ability to pay remains open for consideration at the attorney’s fee hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lidsky Vaccaro & Montes, P.A. v. Morejon, 813 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…ees and costs. The panel found that in the absence of a transcript of the hearing, it could not reverse the trial court’s determination of the amount of such fees and costs unless error appeared on the face of the order itself. See Prymus v. Prymus, 753 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Compton v. Compton, 701 So. 2d 110, 112 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The court then concluded that error did not appear on the face of the order and therefore dismissed the appeal of this order. The firm contends that the circuit court…
-
Encarnacion v. Encarnacion, 877 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…this court is unable to provide an appellate remedy because it has nothing to review and the presumption is there was competent evidence to support the trial court’s rulings. See Paul v. Charles, 816 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Prymus v. Prymus, 753 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Autustin v. Dade County School Board, 766 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). However, if the trial court lacks jurisdiction to act, based on the record before this court, relief may be provided. See Fortune v. Pantin, 851 So. 2d 274…
-
Brill v. Brill, 905 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…pt of the October 8 hearing at which the trial court denied her exceptions to the master’s report prevents us from determining whether the court reviewed the entire file prior to ruling on her exceptions to the master’s report. See Prymus v. Prymus, 753 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (affirming trial court’s order overruling recommendations of general master where appellant failed to provide court with transcript of the hearing or a proper substitute). While Mary did file her own handwritten notes as to what o…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- In re Guardianship OF Georgina H. Read v. Kenefick, 555 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Carmine Brancaccio and Helen Brancaccio v. Jackal Corp., 641 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)