AMY CLARETTA BELFIELD AND EDWIN GEORGE BELFIELD, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
DON M. LOCHNER AND CLELLAH LOCHNER JERNIGAN, UNMARRIED, 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.
In this Florida property dispute, the court affirmed a lower court decree that set aside a 1952 deed conveying homestead property on the grounds that it violated Florida's constitutional homestead exemption. The appellate court held that appellants failed to provide a proper trial transcript on appeal, precluding review of the chancellor's factual findings.
The chancellor's decree setting aside the deed as to the homestead property was affirmed. The appellate court held that appellants failed to provide an adequate record (specifically, no transcript of trial testimony) on appeal, which precluded meaningful appellate review and required affirmance under the presumption of correctness afforded to trial court decrees.
“In bringing the appeal, appellants are encumbered with the obligation to make errors complained of , clearly to appear through furnishing the court with a proper record of the facts and circumstances appertaining to and connected with the claimed errors.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that appellants must provide an adequate trial record to support claims of error on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn C. Lochner executed a deed on January 8, 1952, conveying property to himself and his wife Amy C. Lochner as joint tenants with survivorship. Afte…
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
Appellees, Don M. Lochner and Clellah Lochner Jernigan, as plaintiffs below, sought to have the court set aside a deed dated January 8, 1952, made by their father, John C. Lochner, and joined in by their stepmother, then Amy C. Lochner, defendant-appellant, conveying certain property to John C. Lochner and Amy C. Loch-ner, his wife, and to the survivor of them. The chancellor decreed that the property described in the complaint was on January 8, 1952, homestead property to the extent of one-half acre of land and declared as null, void, and of no force and effect the deed in question as to Lots 2, 4, and 6 of Block 82, City of Clermont, less the west 4.8 feet of Lot 6 which he designated as being in excess of the half-acre exemption allowable under Article X of the Constitution of Florida, F.S.A. It was further determined that Amy Claretta Beifield, formerly Amy Cla-retta Lochner, as the widow of John C. Lochner, deceased, be decreed as owner of a life estate in Lots 2, 4, and 6 of Block 82 and the fee simple owner of the portion exceeding the constitutional homestead exemption as previously set out and that the plaintiffs, as the only children and heirs of John C. Lochner, be decreed as owners in fee simple of Lots 2, 4, and 6, Block 82, less, the west 4.8 feet of Lot 6, subject to the life estate which had been decreed in favor of Amy Claretta Beifield, formerly Amy Cla-retta Lochner.
After the death of John C. Lochner, his widow, Amy C. Lochner, was married to *669one Edwin George Belfield; from the final decree of the chancellor, these two have brought the present appeal.
From the record before this court, we find no basis for overturning the decree. We observe that there was entered a pretrial order in which the parties stipulated to certain matters. We further note, and it was conceded before this court, that at the final hearing, testimony was given by witnesses under the issues created and that this was not reported. The chancellor rendered an opinion, making certain findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which he based his final decree; it is apparent that testimony of the witnesses entered into the decision which he reached.
In bringing the appeal, appellants are encumbered with the obligation to make errors complained of , clearly to appear through furnishing the court with a proper record of the facts and circumstances appertaining to and connected with the claimed errors. In considering the matters raised by an appellant, an appellate 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 the court. Since this is the situation with which we are confronted and since the final decree comes to this court with the presumption of correctness, we cannot say that reversible error was committed; consequently, the final decree below should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., KANNER, J. (Ret.), and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Johnson v. Town OF Eatonville, 203 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…ss of the label. It is the responsibility and the duty of the petitioner to provide the appellate court with a record sufficient to review the matter assigned as error. Gleim v. Gleim, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 610; Belfield v. Lochner, Fla.App.1964, 162 So. 2d 668; Cleeland v. Miami Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 260. Petitioner has failed to supply a sufficient record. Certiorari denied. WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., and WADDELL, THOMAS R., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Hoover v. State, 212 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…peal. Generally, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict cannot be considered on appeal where the exhibits introduced are not made a part of the record. Steele v. State, 85 Fla. 57, 95 So. 299 (1923); Belfield v. Lochner, Fla.App. 1964, 162 So. 2d 668. It is axiomatic that an Appellate Court will not reverse a finding of fact by the lower court unless the error is patent on the record. Mixon v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 190. For the above and foregoing reasons the verdict herein appealed be and…
-
S. Fla. Apt. Ass'n, Inc. v. Dansyear, 347 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…rauds as a matter of law. This court, accordingly, has no alternative but to assume that the trial court ruled correctly and affirm the decision below. Reicheck v. Florida Bond and Mortgage Co., 237 So. 2d 83 (Fla.4th DCA 1970); Belfield v. Lochner, 162 So. 2d 668 (Fla.2d DCA 1964). The appellant also appeals from an order denying its motion for rehearing on a prior order requiring the appellant to post a supersedeas bond. We dismiss this appeal sua sponte. This court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. Roberts, 79 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1955)
- Best v. Barnette, 130 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Gilson v. Murphy, 151 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)