BOBBY F. BOWERS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ON BEHALF OF TERESA L. MORGAN, 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.
Appellant's appeal of a child support order was affirmed because he failed to timely present evidence of payments made and financial changes to the trial court, and appellate review is limited to the record below.
An appellate court cannot consider evidence or arguments regarding changed financial circumstances or actual child support payments that were not presented to the trial court.
[1] An appellate court is precluded from considering evidence or arguments not presented to the trial court, as the appellate function is limited to determining whether the l…
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 intelligenceBobby F. Bowers, Jr. appealed a final administrative child support order establishing his current and retroactive child support obligation. Bowers arg…
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 Review Of Record cases and more on FLexlaw
Bobby F. Bowers, Jr., appeals a final administrative child support order which establishes his current as well as his retroactive child support obligation. Bowers argues that the actual amount of child support already paid by him was not disclosed below. Bowers has not demonstrated, however, that he timely sought to introduce such specific evidence into the record below. Bowers further argues that, because his financial condition has changed since entry of the support order, the amount of child support ordered should be “reevaluated.” As a court of review, this court is precluded from considering matters outside of the record of the proceedings below. Thomber v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 534 So.2d 754, 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Because Bowers has not established any basis for reversible error on the record, the order is affirmed. See Hillsborough County Bd. v. Pub. Employees Relations Comm’n, 424 So.2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (explaining that an appeal is not an evidentiary proceeding, so an appellate court will not consider evidence not presented to the lower tribunal because function of appellate court is to determine whether lower tribunal committed error based upon the issues and evidence before it).
AFFIRMED.
WEBSTER, VAN NORTWICK and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hillsborough Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n & Hillsborough Cnty. Governmental Emps. Ass'n, Inc., 424 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Thornber v. City OF Fort Walton Beach, 534 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)