J&R UNITED INDUSTRIES, INC., ETC.
v.
STEPHEN E. MIRON, 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.
J&R United Industries' appeal of a judgment in favor of Stephen E. Miron was affirmed because J&R failed to provide an adequate appellate record, and the trial court's judgment was not fundamentally erroneous on its face.
A trial court's findings and judgment are presumed correct and cannot be disturbed absent a record demonstrating reversible error, and where the appellant fails to provide an adequate record, the judgment must be affirmed if not fundamentally erroneous on its face.
[1] Where an appellant fails to provide an adequate appellate record of trial proceedings, a trial court judgment that is not fundamentally erroneous on its face must be affi…
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 intelligenceJ&R United Industries appealed a final judgment entered in favor of Stephen E. Miron, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Jul…
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 Non-Jury Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
GORDO, J.
J&R United Industries, Inc. (“J&R”) appeals a final judgment entered in favor of Stephen E. Miron, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Julie Miron (“Miron”) following a non-jury trial. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). Finding no demonstrable error in the trial court’s conclusions of law, we affirm. J&R challenges the trial court’s findings of fact arguing they were either not supported by the record or the facts adduced at trial were insufficient as a matter of law for the trial court to have reached the legal conclusions contained in the judgment. J&R, however, has not provided this Court with an adequate record of the trial proceedings below.1 “We cannot emphasize too strongly the fundamental principle of appellate review that ‘a trial court’s findings and judgment come to a reviewing court with a presumption of correctness, and cannot be disturbed absent a record demonstrating reversible error.’” Thurman v. Davis, 321 So. 3d 341, 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (quoting JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Combee, 883 So. 2d 330, 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). “This case may or may not have had a failure of proof. However, it does suffer from the failure of a
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Zarate v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 81 So. 3d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- J P Morgan Chase Bank v. Combee, 883 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Gmac Mortg., LLC v. Palenzuela, 208 So. 3d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)