JESSE DIEGUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
CRAIG E. WEISSBERG, P.A., 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 court affirmed the trial court's order granting an attorney's charging lien and fee judgment where the appellant failed to provide a trial transcript and thus could not rebut the presumption of correctness attaching to the trial court's factual findings.
An appellant challenging a trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs cannot overcome the presumption of correctness without providing a trial transcript or substitute record.
[1] An appellant challenging trial court factual findings must provide a trial transcript or approved substitute record; absent such record, a presumption of correctness atta…
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 intelligenceJesse Dieguez, a former client, appealed a trial court order granting his former attorney Craig Weissberg's motion to adjudicate and foreclose a charg…
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 Record cases and more on FLexlaw
Jesse Dieguez (“the client”) appeals from a trial court order granting his former attorney’s “Motion to Adjudicate and Foreclose Charging Lien and for Entry of Final Judgment for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.” We affirm.
In this appeal, the client sets forth a number of challenges to the factual findings entered by the trial court. However, because no transcript of the proceedings below appears in the record, and the client has not opted to provide a substitute pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(a)(4), or 9.200(b)(4), the client is unable to provide any evidentiary support for his arguments. Conversely, the trial court’s findings are bolstered by two written retainer agreements, signed by the client, which do appear in the record.
In the absence of a proper record, a presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court’s decision and this Court’s review is limited to whether errors appear on the face of the judgment. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); Porteous v. Porteous, 937 So.2d 1179, 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Prymus v. Prymus, 753 So.2d 742, 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Here, the client has failed to overcome the presumption of correctness attached to the trial court’s decision, and no errors appear on the face of the trial court’s decision. Accordingly, the order on appeal is affirmed in all respects.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baumann v. Agudelo (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Prymus v. Annmarie Duncan Prymus, 753 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Said Awad v. State, 937 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)