I. A.
v.
N. A.
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 appellate court cannot properly review a trial court's judgment without a record of the trial proceedings to determine whether the judgment is supported by the evidence.
[1] An appellate court cannot properly review whether a trial court's judgment is supported by the evidence without a record of the trial proceedings.
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“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.”
Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979)
This is a family law matter (case number indicates domestic relations) in Orange County Circuit Court. The appellant appealed the trial court's judgme…
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 Record Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2025-0097 Lower Tribunal No. 2023-DR-001630
I.A., Appellant,
v.
N.A., Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Michael Deen, Judge.
July 10, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“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."); Joyner v. Worley, 264 So. 3d 260, 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“Our review is hindered by the lack of a transcript. 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."); Williams v. Williams, 152 So. 3d 702, 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ("[W]here an error by the court appears for the first time on the face of a final order, a party must alert the court of the error via a motion for rehearing or some other appropriate motion in order to preserve it for appeal.").
NARDELLA, BROWNLEE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.
I.A., Orlando, pro se.
Mitchel B. Krause, Longwood, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Somma v. Metra Elecs. Corp., 727 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Williams v. Williams, 152 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Kristopher A. Joyner v. Worley, 264 So. 3d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)