DAVID GILSON AND BELLE GILSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
MURPHY, FEARNLEY AND YAWN, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, HOYT C. MURPHY, JOE FEARNLEY AND HOWARD W. YAWN, APPELLEES
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.
The plaintiffs Gilson appealed a judgment entered against them in a breach of lease contract action. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the appellants failed to include essential deposition testimony in the appellate record, thereby preventing meaningful appellate review.
The appellate court cannot review the merits of the appellants' claims because they failed to include the essential deposition testimony in the appellate record. It is the duty of appellants to make errors clearly appear through a proper appellate record of the facts and circumstances relevant to those errors.
“Upon an appeal, it becomes the duty of the appellants or their counsel to make clearly appear the errors complained of through availing the court of a proper record of the facts and circumstances pertinent to and connected' with those asserted errors.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that appellants must provide a complete appellate record to support their claimed errors.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs brought an action against Murphy, Fearnley, and Yawn, Inc., and its individual owners for recovery of rent allegedly due under a lease. A p…
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.
Final judgment for appellees, defendants in the trial court, eventuated from a pretrial conference held with respect to an action brought by appellants-plaintiffs for recovery of a sum claimed to be due for rent under a lease. The judgment shows that plaintiffs Gilson and defendants Murphy, Fearnley, and Yawn, together with their respective counsel, appeared at the conference, where the lease sued upon and a check drawn by the defendant Yawn were stipulated into evidence. It was then recited in the judgment “ * * * that the court after hearing argument of counsel for the respective parties, examining the file and being otherwise advised in the premises” then entered the judgment for defendants.
Depositions of plaintiffs and of the defendant Yawn were taken and filed in the cause in the trial court. These are not made a part of the appeal record. Notwithstanding this, plaintiffs as appellants set out in their brief certain testimony from the deposition of the defendant Yawn which they employ as support for reversal of the judgment. Upon an appeal, it becomes the duty of the appellants or their counsel to make clearly appear the errors complained of through availing the court of a proper record of the facts and circumstances pertinent to and connected' with those asserted errors. So it is, where an appellant’s points require a consideration of the record which was before the trial judge and connected with his decision and where there is a failure to bring such record before the appellate court, the contentions of the appellant cannot be decided by the appellate court. Gross v. Gross, Fla.App.1961, 131 So.2d 487; Gaddis v. Atlantic Auto Rental, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 295; Broward County Port Authority, etc. v. F. M. Rule & Company, Fla. App.1960, 119 So.2d 82; Greene v. Hoiriis, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 226. Since this is the situation with which we are confronted; we cannot say that error was com*448mitted by the trial court. It therefore follows that the judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
KANNER, Acting Chief Judge, and ALLEN, J., and STURGIS, WALLACE E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Belfield v. Lochner, 162 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…te court must have before it the record under which the lower court arrived at its decision. See Johnson v. Roberts, Fla.1955, 79 So. 2d 425; Best v. Barnette, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 90; and Gilson v. Murphy, Fearnley and Yawn, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 447. As heretofore indicated, we have before us no transcript of the testimony considered and utilized by the chancellor, but the record consists only of plaintiffs’ complaint, defendants’ answer, the pretrial order, the opinion, and the final decree of…
-
In re Guardianship OF Georgina H. Read v. Kenefick, 555 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…red, a judgment which is not fundamentally erroneous on its face must be affirmed. Ahmed v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 516 So. 2d 40 (Fla.3d DCA 1987). See also Gordon v. Burke, 429 So. 2d 36 (Fla.2d DCA 1983); Gilson v. Murphy, Fearnley & Yawn, Inc., 151 So. 2d 447 (Fla.2d DCA 1963); Carter v. Carter, 504 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Conner v. Coggins, 349 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Lambert v. Lambert, 340 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Since the court’s order was not erroneous on its face and the co…
-
Morceau v. Meader, 179 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…the facts and circumstances pertinent to and connected with the asserted errors.2 The appellant having failed to meet these requirements, the judgment appealed must be affirmed. Affirmed. . Gilson v. Murphy, Fearnley and Yawn, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 447. . Hoodless v. Jernigan, 51 Fla. 211, 41 So. 194 (1906).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- NIX v. Lake W. Koontz, 103 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Broward Cnty. Port Auth. v. F. M. Rule & Co., 119 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Gaddis v. Atl. Auto Rental, Inc., 130 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Imogene Gross v. Gross, 131 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)