KARL J. RIPP, APPELLANT,
v.
DELORES K. RIPP, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's refusal to modify a divorce decree regarding child custody, citing a lack of a trial transcript to review the appellant's claims about the appellee's unfitness. The court noted irregularities in the record but affirmed without prejudice for the appellant to re-petition the trial judge.
No, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision because the appellant failed to provide a transcript of the testimony, making it impossible to review the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial.
“This court not having been benefited with a transcript of the testimony of these witnesses, will not accept statements by Appellant in his brief as to what actually transpired before the trial judge.”
Explains why the court could not consider the appellant's arguments about the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought to modify a final divorce decree to change the custody of the parties' two minor children, arguing the appellee was unfit. The ap…
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 Modification Of Divorce Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Karl J. Ripp, by this appeal questions the refusal of the trial judge to modify a final decree of divorce with reference to the care, custody and control of the two minor children of the parties.
The points on appeal as posed by Appellant relate to the sufficiency of the evidence considered by the trial judge in arriving at his decision. Appellant takes the position on this appeal that the pleadings in the cause reflect the unfitness of the Appellee to have the care, custody and control of the said two minor children. In his brief Appellant makes many statements as to the testimony of witnesses he produced which clearly reflected the unfitness of Appellee to have the care, custody and control of the children. This court not having been benefited with a transcript of the testimony of these witnesses, will not accept statements by Appellant in his brief as to what actually transpired before the trial judge. A review of the record before us does present serious *518questions as to the regularity of the proceedings reflected in the record. For these reasons the cause is affirmed without prejudice to Appellant to again petition the trial judge for modification of the final decree.
Affirmed, without prejudice.
RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge, and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.