THEDIGITAL.SUPPORT LLC, ETC.
v.
SMARKETING TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, 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.
When a party fails to provide a transcript of an evidentiary hearing in the appellate record, the appellate court must presume the trial court's order was based on additional evidence adduced at the hearing and affirm absent clear error.
[1] When a party appealing from an evidentiary hearing fails to provide a transcript in the appellate record, the appellate court must presume the trial court's order was bas…
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 the absence of a transcript, we must presume that the trial court's order denying the Bank's motion 'was based on additional evidence adduced at the hearing.'”
The court's statement of the controlling procedural rule regarding appellate review when hearing transcripts are absent from the record.
TheDigital.Support LLC appealed a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County. The appellant failed to furnish a transcript of the ev…
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 Record cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed September 13, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-157 Lower Tribunal No. 22-3470
________________
TheDigital.Support LLC, etc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Smarketing Technologies Corporation, etc., et al., Appellees. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Judge. PAG Law PLLC, and Patricia Acosta and Alexandra Goodstone, for appellant. EPGD Attorneys at Law, P.A., and Justin Hassani and Oscar A. Gomez, for appellees. Before SCALES, HENDON and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Bank of New York Mellon v. One Seagrove Place Owners Ass'n, 276 So. 3d 486, 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“The Bank’s motion set forth a colorable claim [under rule 1.540], and the trial court held an evidentiary hearing. But the Bank furnished no transcript of the hearing in the appendix filed in this appeal. In the absence of a transcript, we must presume that the trial court's order denying the Bank's motion ‘was based on additional evidence adduced at the hearing.’ We thus AFFIRM the order denying relief from the . . . judgment.” (quoting Snowden v. Wells Fargo Bank, 172 So. 3d 506, 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015))).