DREMA DARLENE BRAYTON, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD WILLIAM BRAYTON, 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.
Drema Darlene Brayton appeals a final judgment dissolving her marriage, arguing the trial court erred by failing to award her alimony and by awarding her former husband a timeshare property she owned before marriage. The appellate court affirms, finding no trial court error because alimony was never pleaded as an issue and the wife testified she did not want the timeshare properties.
The trial court did not err. Alimony was never pleaded or raised as an issue for trial, and the wife's testimony at trial established that she did not want the timeshare properties and consented to the husband receiving them.
[1] An appellant bears the burden to demonstrate trial court error, and a trial court's decision is presumed correct on appeal.
[2] An appellate court cannot consider arguments based on facts not present in the official record on appeal.
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“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.”
Establishes the legal standard governing appellate review in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDrema Darlene Brayton and Richard William Brayton were parties to a marriage dissolution. The parties had entered into a mediated settlement agreement…
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.
Drema Darlene Brayton appeals, pro se, from a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Richard William Brayton. In her one-page brief, which argues facts that are not part of the record on appeal,1 Appellant complains that the trial court erred by failing to order her former husband to pay alimony, and by giving her former husband a timeshare property that she owned prior to the marriage. Because the record demonstrates no trial court error, we affirm.
“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.” Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979). With respect to alimony, the trial court found that: “Alimony has never been pled and is not an issue in this case.... ” Appellant has not pointed to any portion of the record demonstrating any error in this finding. Nor have we found any pleading or other filing in the record containing a request for alimony, or noting that alimony was an issue for trial. The record contains a pretrial statement filed by the former husband, pro se, listing the issues that remained for trial after the parties had entered a mediated settlement agreement. That document does not list alimony as an issue for trial. The record contains no pretrial statement from Appellant.
*144With respect to the timeshare issue, the final judgment states that: “Wife testified that she does not want them [the timeshare properties] and that he [the former husband] could have them both.” Because Appellant has not provided us with a trial transcript, we must presume that the final judgment accurately reflects her testimony at trial. See Applegate, 377 So.2d at 1152 (“[without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court cannot properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence”).
Because Appellant has demonstrated no error, we affirm the final judgment.
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quinones v. Quinones, 182 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…the' trial or otherwise provided this Court with the testimony or evidence presented at trial. Our review, therefore, is limited to errors apparent on the face of the final judgment and does not include underlying factual issues. Brayton v. Brayton, 46 So. 3d 142, 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979)). Former Wife raises three issues on appeal, only one of which has merit based on our limited scope of review. Former Wife contends that the…
-
Wineglass v. Wineglass, 48 So. 3d 1003 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…or coercion, so long as they are not against public policy.”). Additionally, we note that we are not permitted to consider the non-record facts that Wineglass attempts to present in support of his argument on appeal. See Brayton v. [*1004] Brayton, 46 So. 3d 142, n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). AFFIRMED. GRIFFIN, ORFINGER, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Reynolds v. Belk, Inc. (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Jarvis Wilson v. State, 992 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)