JENISE CARNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
RODERICK CARNEY, 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 a final judgment dissolving a marriage because the former wife failed to provide a sufficient record on appeal. Without a transcript or statement of evidence, the court could not review her claims of jurisdictional error or issues with a financial affidavit.
The appellate court affirmed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The court held that without a sufficient record, it could not review the alleged errors and found no fundamental error on the face of the record.
[1] An appellant bears the burden to provide a sufficient record on appeal to demonstrate reversible error by the trial court.
[2] An appellate court cannot review a trial court's rulings without a transcript of the proceedings or a statement of the evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 finding that it had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and its distribution of the parties’ marital assets and liabilities, come to this court clothed with the presumption of correctness.”
Establishes the standard of review for the appellate court, presuming the lower court's decisions are correct.
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 wife appealed a final judgment dissolving her marriage, raising issues about the court's jurisdiction, the validity of a financial affidavi…
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 Jurisdiction Over Parties And Subject Matter cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
The former wife appeals a final judgment dissolving her 6-year marriage to the appellee/former husband. The appellant’s first and second issues on appeal relate, respectively, to the sufficiency of the evidence establishing Leon County Circuit Court jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and to the trial court’s alleged reliance on an unsigned and (perhaps) false financial affidavit submitted by the appellee. The third issue challenges the appellant’s inability to present her case after she failed to appear at the dissolution final hearing, after receiving adequate notice of the date and time. We affirm the final judgment of dissolution of marriage on the authority of Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979).
It is unclear whether a court reporter was at the dissolution final hearing. No transcript of the hearing appears in the record on appeal, and the appellant has not filed a statement of the evidence. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.200(b)(4).
The trial court’s finding that it had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and its distribution of the parties’ marital assets and liabilities, come to this court clothed with the presumption of correctness. Lafaille v. Lafaille, 837 So. 2d 601, 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). As the appellant, Former Wife has the burden to prepare and transmit a record, under Rule 9.200(e), sufficient to demonstrate that the trial court reversibly erred. Id.; Wright v. Wright, 431 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Without a transcript of the dissolution trial or a statement of the evidence, we cannot meaningfully review the lower tribunal’s rulings challenged by the appellant. See Lafaille, 837 So. 2d at 604; Damkohler v. Damkohler, 336 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Thus, we are “limited to a consideration of any fundamental error which appears on the face of the order.” Id. at 1243; Lafaille, 837 So. 2d at 604. Finding no such fundamental error on the face of the record, we AFFIRM the final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
BARFIELD and WEBSTER, JJ. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murphy v. Murphy, 948 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…al transcript.1 In the absence of a trial transcript, we are obligated to affirm the trial court unless fundamental error appears on the face of the appealed order. Mayfield v. Mayfield, 929 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). See also Carney v. Carney, 861 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). A final judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered on April 3, 2003. The marital settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the final judgment, provided the former husband would pay rehabilitative alimony of $1,000…
-
Rachkov v. Medvednik (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)…Without a transcript or statement of the evidence, the reviewing court is ' "limited to a consideration of any fundamental error which appears on the face of the order" ' and, finding none, must affirm the final judgment." (quoting Carney v. Carney, 861 So. 2d 1272, 1273-74 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003))). ---PAGE 4--- with whom the trial court found fault.² Accordingly, there is no error, fundamental or otherwise, on the face of the order.³ Affirmed. SILBERMAN and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to r…
-
Herrera-Frias v. Frias, 130 So. 3d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…s court.1 Under Florida law, it was her responsibility to take those steps if she wished to challenge a decision by the trial court that was dependent upon the evidence and arguments before that court. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.200(e); Carney v. Carney, 861 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). When a parent is in willful violation of a pretrial order addressing the removal of the children from the jurisdiction of the court, it is well within the discretion of the trial court to award sole responsibility to the parent…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Wright v. Huretta Moss Wright, 431 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Damkohler v. Heidi Damkohler (Pollmann), 336 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Eddy Lafaille v. Lafaille, 837 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)