JONATHAN AUSTIN BURKETT, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIA CHONA KALAW KAIBIGAN BURKETT, N/K/A MCCAY, 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 an award of attorney's fees to the former wife in a dissolution modification proceeding, finding that although the trial court's findings were insufficient and substantive errors were suspected, the former husband's failure to file a motion for rehearing and lack of a hearing transcript precluded meaningful appellate review.
An appellate court must affirm an attorney's fee award despite suspected deficiencies in findings and substantive error when the appellant fails to file a motion for rehearing and provides no transcript of the relevant hearing.
[1] Failure to file a motion for rehearing in the trial court waives appellate review of deficient findings of fact supporting an attorney's fee award in a family law modific…
[2] Absence of a hearing transcript prevents appellate review of the evidentiary basis for an attorney's fee award and precludes determination of whether issues were properly…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA former husband appealed an order awarding attorney's fees to the former wife for proceedings to modify a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, …
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 Without Transcript cases and more on FLexlaw
The former husband appeals from an order awarding the former wife attorney’s fees for proceedings to modify a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, as well as an income deduction order effectuating the fee order. He has shown error in the trial court’s failure to include sufficient findings to support the fee award, but we are constrained to affirm as to this issue because the former husband did not file a motion for rehearing alerting the trial court to the deficiencies in the findings. See Owens v. Owens, 973 So.2d 1169, 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); See Furr v. Furr, 57 So.3d 914, 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). The former husband has also raised our suspicions concerning substantive error in the decision to award attorney’s fees, in the amount of attorney’s fees awarded, and in the inclusion of all the attorney’s fees in the income deduction order. However, we are again constrained to affirm because the former husband has represented that no transcript is available for the relevant hearing. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979). Without a transcript, we cannot know what evidence the court heard beyond the documents that were filed in the record, and we cannot know what issues were preserved for review. See id.; Rose v. Clements, 973 So.2d 529, 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Hoffman v. Hoffman, 920 So.2d 131, 131 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
AFFIRMED.
ROBERTS, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schneider v. Schneider, 189 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…ns on' this matter one way or the other.2 Although the former husband [*279] argues error in the lack of sufficient findings, he did not preserve this challenge to the lack of sufficient findings as required by our precedent. See Burkett v. Burkett, 155 So. 3d 478, 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Under these circumstances, we aferm, not knowing if evidence and arguments’ presented at the hearing would clarify the basis for the'fee award and the fee order’s focus on one aspect of the parties’ circumstances. See Apple…
-
Kristopher A. Joyner v. Worley, 264 So. 3d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…Some of the father’s appellate arguments are facially plausible, but without a transcript we cannot determine whether many of the asserted errors were preserved for appeal and—if they were—whether they were indeed errors. See Burkett v. Burkett, 155 So. 3d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“The former husband has also raised our suspicions concerning substantive error in the decision to award attorney’s fees, in the amount of attorney’s fees awarded, and in the inclusion of all the attorney’s fees in the incom…
-
Horton v. Horton, 257 So. 3d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
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)
- Owens v. Owens, 973 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Rose v. Clements, 973 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Furr v. Furr, 57 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Hoffman v. Kenneth A. Hoffman and the Estate of Eric Hoffman, 920 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Curtis v. State, 920 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)