JAMES A. CHERESKIN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY C. CHERESKIN, 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.
Father's appeal of trial court's denial of child support modification motion is affirmed because father failed to provide a hearing transcript or proper substitute, making the trial court's ruling presumed correct.
A party challenging a trial court's child support modification ruling must provide a transcript or proper substitute; absent such a record, the ruling is presumed correct and the appeal fails.
[1] A party challenging a trial court's child support modification ruling bears the burden of demonstrating abuse of discretion and must provide a hearing transcript or prope…
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 intelligenceFather James Chereskin appealed a trial court order denying his motion to modify his child support obligation and refusing to compel mother Mary Chere…
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 Appellate Burden Of Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
James Chereskin (father) appeals the non-final order entered by the trial court denying his motion to modify his child support obligation, arguing that the court erred in denying his motion and in refusing to compel appellee, Mary Chereskin (mother), to produce a current financial affidavit. We affirm.1
The party who challenges the correctness of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to modify a previously imposed child support obligation has the burden of demonstrating an abuse of discretion. Freeman v. Freeman, 615 So. 2d 225, 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). In this case, the father has failed to provide this court with either a transcript of the hearing conducted below or a proper substitute, such as a stipulated statement of facts. Such failure is fatal to the father’s appeal because, in the absence of such a record, this court cannot evaluate his claims that errors exist in the trial court’s ruling. Instead, the ruling must be presumed correct. Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). See also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979).
AFFIRMED.
COBB and PLEUS, JJ., concur. . Jurisdiction to review this ruling is proper pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii) of the Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure which authorizes appellate review of non-final orders determining the right to immediate monetary relief in family law matters.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pedroni v. Pedroni, 788 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…matter.1 Based upon the record properly before this court, Pedroni has faded to sustain her burden of proving reversible error since the trial court’s ruling comes to this court clothed with a presumption of correctness. See Chereskin v. Chereskin, 790 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(explaining that appellant has the burden to provide appellate court with a record which supports appeal). AFFIRMED. COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . Although Pedroni attempts to bring certain documents to this court's attention…
-
Niemann v. Anderson, 834 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…on of the evidence. Freeman v. Freeman, 615 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). As a result, the party who challenges the correctness of a modification order has the burden of demonstrating, on the record, an abuse of discretion. Chereskin v. Chereskin, 790 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The mother first contends that since the only substantial change of circumstances which occurred in this case involved the parties’ financial circumstances, not the custody arrangements between the parties, the trial court coul…
-
Boone v. Suweyn, 801 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Chereskin v. Chereskin, 790 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). GRIFFIN, PLEUS and PALMER, JJ., concur.…
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
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Freeman v. Freeman, 615 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)