WILBERT R. CANNING, AS RECEIVER FOR INVESTORS MORTGAGE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
E. S. NORTON AND BETTY L. NORTON, EDITH C. BISHOP, AND LIVINGSTON D. ECCELSTON AND FLORENCE B. ECCELSTON, 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.
A Receiver for Investors Mortgage Corporation appealed a court order directing payment of funds to judgment creditors, contending that their judgments did not constitute liens and that escrowed funds should not be distributed. The appellate court affirmed, finding the record insufficient to show essential facts necessary to determine the appeal.
The court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the record on appeal did not contain the essential facts necessary to determine whether reversible error had been committed. Because the burden rests on the appellant to make reversible error appear and the order came with a presumption of correctness, the order must be affirmed.
“We are compelled to accept the position of the appellees; that is, that the record here does not show the facts necessary to establish the existence of the question presented by the appellant.”
Establishes the core reason for affirmance—the record lacks essential factual support for the appellant's contentions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe record on appeal consists of a Petition for Instructions by the Receiver, a Stipulation between the Receiver and appellees approved by the court, …
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 Presumption Of Correctness On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
In a suit brought in Chancery by the State of Florida, by J. Edwin Larson (State Treasurer), Richard W. Ervin (Attorney General), and Ray E. Green (Comptroller), as and constituting the Florida Securities Commission, plaintiff, vs. Investors Mortgage Corporation, a Florida corporation, and Joe H. Byrnes and Thurbert Hilliker, defendants, we have an appeal by Wilbert R. Canning, as Receiver for Investors Mortgage Corporation, appellant, vs. E. S. Norton and Betty L. Norton; Edith C. Bishop; and Livingston D. Ecceiston and Florence B. Ecceiston, appellees. The record on appeal consists of a Petition for Instructions filed by the Receiver; a Stipulation between the Receiver and the appel-lees here, which Stipulation was approved by the court; and a subsequent Petition for Instructions, wherein the Receiver contended (1) that certain judgments held by the appellees did not constitute liens against the corporation’s property in the hands of the Receiver, and (2) that the funds derived from the sale of the property and deposited in the registry of the court (as substitute security pursuant to the aforesaid Stipulation) should not be paid to the judgment creditors. The court entered an Order adverse to the Receiver’s position, and this appeal ensued.
We are compelled to accept the position of the appellees; that is, that the record here does not show the facts necessary to establish the existence of the question presented by the appellant. The record does not show the filing date of the suit which resulted in the Receivership; nor does it show the reason or time of appointment of the Receiver, his powers and duties, and the parties to the action. There are other instances where the record on appeal does not substantiate essential facts necessary to support appellant’s statement of the case and the facts involved. The points involved cannot be determined without these facts.
The order appealed comes here under a presumption of correctness. The *738burden is on the appellant to make reversible error appear. The order was entered based upon facts which, at least in part, do not appear in the record on appeal. The order must be affirmed. See Dean v. Marineways, Inc. of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 577.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and ALLEN and SHANNON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The City OF S. BAY v. Armstrong, 188 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)…always on the appellant. An order or decree comes to the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and before -there will be a reversal the appellant must present facts to clearly demonstrate error. Canning v. Norton, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 737; Southern National Bank of Fort Walton Beach v. Young, Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 788. The duty is upon the appellant to bring to the appellate court the proper record of facts upon which the errors assigned are based. Best v. Barnette, Fla.App.1961,…
-
Palmer v. Palmer, 330 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…g her a special equity in property owned by her husband. The finding and judgment of the trial court come to this court with a presumption of correctness and it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate otherwise. Canning v. Norton, Fla.App.2d 1963, 155 So. 2d 737. Where, as here, points raised on appeal require a review of the evidence considered by the trial court and a record thereof is not furnished us in support of those contentions on appeal, this court cannot reverse the trial court on such points. Bro…
-
Local 915 v. Ogden, 165 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Florida Appellate Rule 4.2(d), 31 F.S.A. and Canning v. Norton, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 737. SMITH, C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Dean v. Marineways, 146 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)