PEREZ
v.
DWYER
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.
Jennifer Perez appealed a trial court order suspending her timesharing with her child. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the suspension order because the appellant failed to provide a transcript of the trial court hearing, making meaningful appellate review impossible.
The order suspending timesharing was affirmed. Because the appellant failed to provide a transcript of the trial court hearing, the appellate court could not conduct meaningful review and was compelled to affirm under the presumption of correctness accorded to trial court decisions.
[1] An appellant's failure to provide a transcript of trial proceedings to the appellate court prevents meaningful review and results in affirmance of the trial court's decis…
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 can not 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.”
The court cited Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee to explain why an inadequate record requires affirmance.
Jennifer Perez and Paul Grant Dwyer are parties to a child custody matter in Miami-Dade County. The trial court issued an order suspending Perez's tim…
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 Of Trial Court Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed February 27, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D18-1931 Lower Tribunal No. 18-18800 ________________ Jennifer Perez, Appellant, vs. Paul Grant Dwyer, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R. Manno Schurr, Judge. Jennifer Perez, in proper person. Filler Rodriguez, LLP, and Catherine M. Rodriguez, for appellee. Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and HENDON, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Jennifer Perez (the mother) appeals from an order suspending her timesharing with the parties’ child. We review the trial court’s order for an abuse of discretion.
Ryan v. Ryan, 257 So. 3d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (noting: “The trial court's limitations on the Former Wife's visitation are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
The court has discretion to restrict or deny visitation to protect the welfare of the child”) (citation omitted).
The record on appeal is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review, as Perez has failed to provide this court with a transcript of the hearing conducted by the trial court. Under these circumstances, and given that there are no errors on the face of the order on appeal, we are compelled to affirm. As the Florida Supreme Court held in Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979):
In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error. . . . 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 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. The trial court should have been affirmed because the record brought forward by the appellant is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error. See also Bisnauth v. Leelum, 233 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Rodriguez v. Lorenzo, 215 So. 3d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Hill v. Calderin, 47 So. 3d 852, 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mishkin v. Mishkin, 373 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
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)
- Rodriguez v. Lorenzo, 215 So. 3d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- T.M. v. State, 233 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Ryan v. Ryan, 257 So. 3d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Rajnauth Bisnauth v. Leelum, 233 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)