ESTELLE ROSENBAUM, K/N/A ESTELLE HODKIN, DECEASED, BY TERRYL MARLENE ROSENBAUM, A MINOR, AND FREDRIC J. HODKIN, PERMANENT GUARDIAN AND CUSTODIAN OF SAID MINOR CHILD, APPELLANTS,
v.
PHILIP ROSENBAUM, APPELLEE
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 custody and support modification appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's order denying Philip Rosenbaum's petition to modify a divorce decree to gain custody of the minor child from the child's stepfather, Fredric J. Hodkin, following the death of the child's mother. The appellate court was unable to review the merits because the trial testimony was not included in the appellate record.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order denying the modification petition and terminating support payments, finding that without the trial testimony in the appellate record, it must presume the correctness of the lower court's ruling and cannot review the merits of the decision.
“It is apparent from the recitals and findings in the order that the judge of the lower court based his ruling upon the testimony of the witnesses who appeared before him. None of said testimony has been incorporated in the record which is before this court so that it could be reviewed.”
Establishes the foundational problem preventing appellate review—the trial testimony was not included in the appellate record.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEstelle Rosenbaum obtained a divorce from Philip Rosenbaum in December 1960, receiving custody of their minor child, Terryl. Estelle subsequently rema…
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 Child Custody Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
Estelle Rosenbaum sued Philip Rosen-baum for divorce in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida, and final decree of divorce was awarded to plaintiff on December 20, 1960, in which custody of the minor child of the parties, Terryl Rosenbaum, was awarded to plaintiff. Subsequently, Estelle Rosenbaum was remarried to Fredric J. Hodkin. Estelle (Rosenbaum) Hod-kin died on November 26, 1965, and Terryl Rosenbaum continued to reside with Fredric J. Hodkin. On January 10, 1966, Philip Ro-senbaum filed petition to modify the decree by granting him custody of said minor child. Hodkin resisted, hearings were held, testimony was taken, and on September 12, 1966, order was entered by the lower court denying the petition for modification, awarding custody of Terryl to Hodkin, terminating support payments and requiring Rosenbaum and Hodkin to pay their own costs, except the court reporter bill which was assessed equally against each. From said order, Hodkin has appealed and seeks reversal of the lower court for the termination of support payments and failure to assess as costs against Rosenbaum the fees of the psychiatrists who testified for appellant. It is apparent from the recitals and findings in the order that the judge of the lower court based his ruling upon the testimony of the witnesses who appeared before him. None of said testimony has been incorporated in the record which is before this court so that it could be reviewed. Without it this court must indulge in the presumption of correctness of the order of the lower court and affirm same. Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of State of Fla. v. Toffel, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 737; Dixon v. Davis, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 189.
Affirmed.
CROSS and REED, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Strickland v. Jacobs, 235 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…ence of a record, it must be presumed that there was testimony before the chancellor which convinced him that it would have been inequitable for him to enforce his rule to show cause. This ruling must be affirmed.” Again, in Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum, 204 So. 2d 546 (Fla.App.1967), involving a petition to modify the custody provisions of a divorce decree, the Fourth District Court of Appeal declared: “It is apparent from the recitals and findings in the order that the judge of the lower court based his ruling…
Authorities Cited
- Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Fund OF the State OF Fla. v. Toffel, 145 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Dixon v. Manning J. Davis, 155 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)