THOMAS FUHRMAN
v.
SARA G 01, LLC, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's non-final order because appellant failed to provide an adequate trial transcript, preventing meaningful review of whether the trial court abused its discretion.
When an appellant fails to provide a trial transcript or adequate substitute, the appellate court must affirm the trial court's decision absent fundamental error on the face of the order.
[1] Absence of an adequate trial transcript on appeal requires affirmance of a non-final trial court order unless the order is fundamentally erroneous on its face.
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.”
Establishing the foundational principle that appellants must overcome the presumption of correctness of trial court decisions.
Thomas Fuhrman appealed a non-final order from Miami-Dade County Court. Fuhrman did not provide a trial transcript or proper substitute in the appella…
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 Adequate Record On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Because Appellant Thomas Fuhrman has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate reversible error, and because Fuhrman has not demonstrated any fundamental error on the face of the order appealed, we affirm. It is well established 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[,]” Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979), so the lack of a trial transcript or a proper substitute results in a record that is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error and requires affirmance. Umana v. Citizens Prop. Insur. Corp., 282 So. 3d 933, 934-35 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“The absence of a hearing transcript at which the trial court made this decision prevents any meaningful review of whether the trial court abused its discretion in this regard.”); Rodriguez v. Lorenzo, 215 So. 3d 631, 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Because the standard of review is abuse of discretion, and the former wife has not provided this Court with a transcript of the relevant proceedings, the former wife has not . . . shown an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.”); Haddad v. Khan, 54 So. 3d 524, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“In the absence of an adequate transcript on appeal, a judgment that is not fundamentally erroneous must be affirmed.” (quoting Mayfield v. Mayfield, 929 So. 2d 671, 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006))). Affirmed.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rodriguez v. Lorenzo, 215 So. 3d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Haddad v. Yasmin Khan, 54 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Umana v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 282 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
- Mayfield v. Mayfield, 929 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)