WILLIAM P. RAGUSA
v.
VICTORIA M. RAGUSA
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 reverse a trial court's judgment when the appellant fails to provide a record of trial proceedings, as the absence of a transcript prevents the court from reviewing whether the judgment is supported by evidence or whether the trial court misapplied the law.
[1] An appellate court cannot review whether a trial court's judgment is supported by evidence or whether the trial judge misapplied the law without a record of trial proceed…
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.”
The court cited Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee to explain why it could not review the trial court's decision.
William P. Ragusa appealed a trial court decision in a family law case (divorce) from Palm Beach County. The appellant proceeded pro se and did not pr…
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 Review Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Karen M. Miller, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2018-DR-008641-XXXX-NB.
William P. Ragusa, Boynton Beach, pro se. No appearance for appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (holding that “[w]ithout 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,” and “[w]ithout knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal”); Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261, 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“The most salient impediment to meaningful review of the trial court’s decision is not the absence of findings, but the absence of a transcript.”). GROSS, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.