VALERIE FORTUNE, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
ALLAN R. PANTIN, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 order because no errors of law were apparent on its face, given the absence of a transcript.
The former wife appealed a downward modification of alimony, and the former husband cross-appealed the denial of a child support reduction. The record…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Trial Court Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Valerie Fortune, the former wife, appeals the downward modification of the alimony obligation of her former husband, Allan R. Pantin. The former husband cross-appeals the trial court’s order denying his request for a reduction of his child support obligation.
The record before this court contains no transcript of the proceedings below. In the absence of a transcript, this court is unable to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence considered by the trial court in support of its factual findings, and instead presumes such findings to be correct. Hirsch v. Hirsch, 642 So. 2d 20, 21 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); accord Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979). Our review is therefore limited to errors of law that are apparent on the face of the judgment. Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
Having carefully reviewed the limited record before us, we find no errors of law apparent on the face of the order being appealed. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA, C.J., ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
State v. Harris, 881 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 2004)…zed its holding and have applied it outside the context of habeas corpus. See State v. Riddle, 862 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); State v. McFarland, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2298, — So. 2d -—, 2003 WL 22259634 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct.3, 2003); State v. Klein, 851 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Marsh v. State, 849 So. 2d 1178, 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Krischer v. Ford, 847 So. 2d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Sublett v. State, 842 So. 2d 314, 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Sandillo v. State, 842 So. 2d 1018, 1019 (Fla. 5th…
-
Encarnacion v. Encarnacion, 877 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…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 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). At the time a judgment of dissolution of marriage becomes final, the parties’ property rights, if determined by the judgment are fixed as a matter of law. Brandt v. B…
-
Larocka v. Larocka, 43 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…Fugina v. Fugina, 874 So. 2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“Because there is no transcript of the hearing in this contempt proceeding, our review is limited to errors of law that are apparent on the face of the record.” (citing Fortune v. Pantin, 851 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990))); Kanter v. Kanter, 850 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Ballesteros v. Ballesteros, 819 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Calderon v. Calderon, 730 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th…
Previewing 3 of 16 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)
- Hirsch v. Hirsch, 642 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)