DALE POWERS, APPELLANT,
v.
TAMI POWERS, 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.
Dale Powers appealed an order denying his motion to modify temporary alimony in a dissolution of marriage case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision but remanded with directions to expedite resolution of the remaining issues, expressing concern about the delay in resolving the case.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to modify temporary alimony, finding that Mr. Powers failed to provide an adequate record (transcript) to demonstrate reversible error and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
[1] A party seeking to modify a temporary alimony award must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances.
[2] An appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record to demonstrate reversible error, as trial court decisions are presumed correct.
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“An appellant has the burden to bring forward a record adequate to demonstrate reversible error because we presume the decision of a trial court to be correct.”
Establishes the fundamental appellate standard that without an adequate record, the trial court's decision is presumed correct and cannot be reversed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDale Powers filed for dissolution of marriage in November 1999, and his wife Tami counter-petitioned seeking equitable distribution, alimony, and atto…
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 Temporary Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, R. B„ J.
Dale Powers appeals an order denying his motion to modify the temporary alimony awarded to Tami Powers, his wife. We affirm.
Mr. Powers filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in November, 1999. Mrs. Powers counter-petitioned seeking an equitable distribution of the marital assets, alimony, and attorney’s fees. With the exception of alimony and attorney’s fees, all issues were resolved between the parties at mediation in March, 2000. In September, 2000, Judge Roger J. McDonald ordered Mr. Powers to pay Mrs. Powers $500 per month in temporary alimony. Subsequently, Mrs. Powers’s attorney withdrew, and in February, 2001, Judge McDonald appointed counsel for her.1 Mr. Powers, who was then unrepresented, filed a motion seeking to be relieved of his obligation to pay temporary alimony. Following a hearing before Judge Carol E. Draper, Mr. Powers’s motion was denied based on the trial court’s conclusion that he failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances.
Mr. Powers failed to provide this court with a transcript of the hearing on his motion seeking to modify the temporary alimony award. An appellant has the burden to bring forward a record adequate to demonstrate reversible error because we presume the decision of a trial court to be correct. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979). “Absent a transcript, the record lacks a basis to reverse the trial court’s decision.” Compton v. Compton, 701 So. 2d 110, 112 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we affirm the order being reviewed.
We are, however, concerned about the delay in bringing this matter to a conclusion. Trial judges are tasked with taking charge of all cases at an early stage in the litigation and controlling the process of each case thereafter until the case is determined. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.085(b). The supreme court’s guideline for resolving contested domestic relations cases is 180 days. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.085(d)(1)(C). Despite that guideline, this dissolution matter, filed in November, 1999, and substantially resolved through mediation several months later, still languishes in the court system. This is no doubt due in part to the fact that at various times in the litigation, one or both of the parties has been unrepresented, but that fact notwithstanding, this case is long overdue for resolution. While we are sympathetic to the considerable work load shouldered by this state’s trial judges, we must assure that justice is dispensed in a timely manner. Accordingly, while we affirm the order on review, on remand, we direct the trial court to set this matter for trial on an expedited basis and resolve it promptly.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
HARRIS, J., concurs.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs in result only.
. The order appointing counsel for Mrs. Powers offers no reason for doing so and we are unaware of any basis that would permit the court to appoint counsel for an otherwise competent party in a dissolution case, particularly if done at public expense.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Poling v. Palm Coast Abstract & Title, Inc., 882 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…ourt is presumed to have ruled correctly absent a record that demonstrates error. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); Roach v. Unemployment Appeals Com’n., 873 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Powers v. Powers, 831 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Compton v. Compton, 701 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). In the absence of a transcript, the trial court’s factual findings are presumed correct. Applegate, 377 So. 2d at 1152; Squires v. Darling, 834 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 200…
-
Ginny L. Sheehan v. Sheehan, 853 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ncur. . See § 741.30(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (2001). . The wife has failed to provide this court with a transcript of the hearing or a stipulation of facts as authorized under rule 9.200 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Powers v. Powers, 831 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(explaining that an appellant has the burden to bring forward a record adequate to demonstrate reversible error because we presume the decision of a trial court to be correct).…
-
Valeri Kouzine v. Kouzine, 44 So. 3d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…affirm in part and reverse in part. Our review of the evidentiary basis for the claimed errors is limited, as the record does not contain a transcript of the trial. As a result, the trial judge’s findings are presumed correct. See Powers v. Powers, 831 So. 2d 724, 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (reiterating that appellant has burden to bring forth record adequate to demonstrate reversible error because trial court is presumed to be correct). In the absence of a transcript, our review is limited to errors apparent o…
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)
- Ass'n Emp'rs Ins. Co. v. Am. Excavating & PSI, Inc., 701 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)