DEISIS DURAN
v.
JOSE DURAN
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.
Without a complete record of trial proceedings, an appellate court cannot properly resolve factual issues or conclude that the trial court's judgment is unsupported by evidence or that the trial judge misapplied the law.
“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, cited for the principle that appellate review requires a complete trial record.
This is an appeal from a family law judgment in Osceola County. The appellant challenged the trial court's decision but did not provide a complete rec…
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.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2025-1175 Lower Tribunal No. 2017-DR-000553
DEISIS DURAN, Appellant,
V.
JOSE DURAN, Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County. Laura Shaffer, Judge.
November 6, 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. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal."); Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 1252, 1278 (Fla. 2005) ("Litigants . . . have no right
to have any particular judge hear their case."); Tingle v. Dade Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 245 So. 2d 76, 78 (Fla. 1971) (“While a judge should hesitate to undo his own work, and should hesitate still more to undo the work of another judge, he does have, until final judgment, the power to do so and may therefore vacate or modify the [i]nterlocutory rulings or orders of his predecessor in the case.").
TRAVER, C.J., and SMITH and PRATT, JJ., concur.
Neyza L. Guzman, of The Law Offices of Neyza L. Guzman, Orlando, for Appellant. Carol B. Shannin and Nicholas A. Shannin, of Shannin Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, 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
- Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2005)
- Anne E. Tingle v. Dade Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 245 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1971)