RAJNAUTH BISNAUTH, APPELLANT,
v.
SARAH LEELUM, 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 was affirmed because he failed to provide a trial transcript, triggering a presumption of correctness for the trial court's order, and no error was apparent on the face of the order.
When an appellant fails to provide a trial transcript, the trial court's judgment must be affirmed unless error is apparent on the face of the order.
[1] An appellant's failure to provide a trial transcript results in a presumption of correctness for the trial court's judgment, limiting appellate review to error apparent o…
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 intelligence“When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. 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 or by an alternative theory.”
Explaining why a presumption of correctness applies when trial transcripts are absent.
Appellant Bisnauth appealed a trial court order but did not provide a transcript of the final hearing or an adequate record for appellate review.…
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 Presumption Of Correctness cases and more on FLexlaw
Because appellant has failed to provide a transcript of the final hearing or an otherwise adequate record for our review, a presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court’s order. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (holding: “When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. 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 or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal”). Our review is limited to whether any error is apparent on the face of the order on appeal. Hill v. Calderin, 47 So.3d 852, 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding: “Generally, where an appellant fails to provide the appellate court with a trial transcript, the trial court’s judgment must be affirmed. Notwithstanding the absence of a transcript, however, an appellate court may review a lower court judgment for error apparent on its face”) (citations omitted).
Finding no such error, we affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. Dwyer, 271 So. 3d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
-
Rajnauth Bisnauth v. Leelum (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Hill v. Calderin, 47 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)