JOHN E. WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
JEANNE H. WRIGHT, 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 a lower court's decision regarding child custody and support in a divorce case. The court found that the appellant husband failed to provide a complete record on appeal, making it impossible to review his contentions.
No, the chancellor did not err. The appellate court could not review the husband's contentions because the record on appeal was incomplete.
“The record brought to this court contains only the deposition of the appellant.”
Establishes the inadequacy of the appellate record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant husband sought to change the custody of minor children from his wife, the appellee, and also contested an award of support and alimony. …
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 Support Obligation cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant husband seeks review of a post decretal order in a divorce action in which the chancellor refused to change the custody of minor children from the appel-lee wife to the appellant, and awarded certain support and alimony.
The appellant’s main contention here is based on the failure of the evidence and testimony to support the chancellor’s action. The record brought to this court contains only the deposition of the appellant. The appellant’s brief refers to other evidence and testimony, but such evidence and testimony do not appear as a part of this record. See Greene v. Hoiriis, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 226, 227, and cases cited therein.
Upon the record presented, we fail to find that the chancellor erred. Accordingly the decree appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Epperson v. Rupp, 157 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…to review such an order by final appellate proceedings. In this connection, our attention has been directed to previous opinions of this court, found in: In re Nolan’s Estate, Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 341, and in Birnbaum v. Feinstein, Fla.App.1961, 129 So. 2d 164, which relate to this jurisdictional question. The first opinion indicates that such an order is reviewable by this type of pro [*538] ceedings, and the latter opinion indicates that it is not. The appellant filed a claim which was objected to by a…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- NIX v. Lake W. Koontz, 103 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)