ALBERTO HOYOS
v.
ATLANTIC VIEW PARTNERS, LTD., ETC.
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 appellant who fails to provide a trial transcript or proper substitute bears the burden of demonstrating reversible error, and without such a record, affirmance is required.
[1] An appellant's failure to provide a trial transcript or proper substitute in the appellate record prevents demonstration of reversible error and requires affirmance, as t…
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“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error, so the lack of a trial transcript or a proper substitute results in record that is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error.”
The court explained the foundational principle governing appellate review when appellants lack adequate records.
Alberto Hoyos appealed a circuit court decision from Miami-Dade County (trial judge Alan Fine) in a case styled against Atlantic View Partners, Ltd.…
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 Appellant'S Burden To Demonstrate Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (explaining that “[i]n appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error,” so “the lack of a trial transcript or a proper substitute” results in record that is “inadequate to demonstrate reversible error” and requires affirmance); Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46-47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (finding no abuse of discretion in dismissing action for fraud on court where it clearly and convincingly can be demonstrated that party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate matter by improperly influencing trier of fact or unfairly hampering presentation of opposing party's claim or defense, and where party lies about matters pertinent to its own claim or portion thereof and perpetrates fraud that permeates entire proceeding).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- COX v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)