PITCHER
v.
SCHNEIDER
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.
An appellant challenging a trial court's paternity judgment and time-sharing determination must provide a trial transcript or other recreation of testimony to demonstrate error, as factual issues cannot be resolved without a complete record.
[1] An appellant challenging a trial court's factual findings regarding time-sharing in a paternity case must provide a trial transcript or substantial equivalent to enable a…
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“we cannot resolve the underlying factual issues in order to determine whether the trial court's judgment . . . is without evidentiary support”
The court explaining why a transcript is necessary for appellate review of factual determinations.
Susan Schneider and Michael Pitcher are unmarried parents of two minor children. Pitcher appealed a final judgment establishing paternity and setting …
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 Burden Of Proof On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED MICHAEL PITCHER, Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-1937 SUSAN SCHNEIDER, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed February 23, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, George Paulk, Judge.
Eduardo J. Mejias, of AAA Family Law, LLC, Altamonte Springs, for Appellant.
Harley I. Gutin, Cocoa, for Appellee.
COHEN, C.J.
Susan Schneider and Michael Pitcher are the unmarried parents of two minor children. Pitcher appeals a final judgment establishing paternity, raising several issues that all pertain to the trial court’s determination of the time-sharing schedule for the parties’ children. Pitcher acknowledges that there is no trial transcript or other recreation of the testimony and evidence presented below. However, he maintains that the trial court’s legal errors are evident on the face of the final judgment and thus a transcript is unnecessary.
Pitcher’s argument lacks merit. Without a transcript, “we cannot resolve the underlying factual issues in order to determine whether the trial court’s judgment . . . is without evidentiary support.” See McQuade v. Holroyd, 208 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA
2017) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.
1979)). Indeed, having reviewed the record, as well as the extensive final judgment and parenting plan, we conclude that Pitcher has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating any error. See Applegate, 377 So. 2d at 1152.
Nonetheless, we write to acknowledge the excellence of the trial court’s final judgment of paternity entered in this case. The judgment is thorough, applies the correct legal standards, and is replete with fact-finding and analysis. Appellate courts are error correcting courts, and while Pitcher may not agree with the trial court’s findings, “it is not the role of an appellate court . . . to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” See
G.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 791 So. 2d 17, 21 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed in all respects.
AFFIRMED. SAWAYA and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (1361 total)
-
Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station Wqba, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999)…ourt reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons, it will be upheld if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record. This Court has adhered to this principle on many other occasions. See, e.g., Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) (“The written final judgment by the trial court could well be wrong in its reasoning, but the decision of the trial court is primarily what matters, not the reasoning used. Even when based on er [*645] roneous reasoning, a conclusio…
-
Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 2010)…ties advance multiple arguments concerning factual issues and the underlying merits of this action. However, the trial court is in the best position to determine the underlying merits during a new trial. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) ("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 can not properly resolve the underlying factua…
-
Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002)…asons” so long as “there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.” Id. at 644-45.2 As we explained in Radio Station WQBA this Court has adhered to this principle on many other occasions. See id. (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) (“The written final judgment by the trial court could well be wrong in its reasoning, but the decision of the trial court is primarily what matters, not the reasoning used. Even when based on erroneous reasoning, a conclusion or dec…
Previewing 3 of 1361 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carraway v. Armour & Co. & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 156 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1963)
- G.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 791 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- McQuade v. Landon Bruce Holroyd, 208 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)