RICHARD I. REICHECK D/B/A COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA BOND AND MORTGAGE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision because the appellant failed to provide a sufficient record for review.
The defendant-counterclaimant appealed an interlocutory order and final judgment in a mortgage foreclosure case. The defendant failed to include his s…
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 Sufficiency Of The Record cases and more on FLexlaw
Consolidated interlocutory appeal and appeal of a final judgment. The defendant-counterclaimant, Richard I. Reicheck, doing business as Commercial Construction Company, seeks review of an interlocutory order and of a final judgment entered by the court in favor of the plaintiff-counterdefendant, Florida Bond and Mortgage Company, as the outgrowth of a mortgage foreclosure.
The defendant-counterclaimant has failed to favor this court with his second amended counterclaim without which this court cannot make a determination, for the very essence of the review sought herein is bottomed upon the counterclaim of the defendant-counterclaimant. It is apparent that the defendant-counterclaimant discovered the error of omission of his second amended counterclaim and filed in this court his amended directions to clerk to include as a supplement to the record on appeal the second amended counterclaim. Rule 3.6d(l) of the appellate rules, 32 F.S.A. requires that the appellant file his directions to the lower court clerk for making up the record on appeal. It is obvious the defendant-counterclaimant is in violation of this rule.
It is the responsibility and duty of the appellant to provide the appellate court with a record sufficient to review the matter assigned as error. Johnson v. Town of Eatonville, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 664; Bostwick v. Bostwick, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 779; Gleim v. Gleim, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 610.
Since the record on appeal is not sufficient to review the matter assigned as error, this court must assume that the trial court ruled correctly. Johnson v. Town of Eatonville, supra.
Affirmed.
CROSS, C. J., and REED and OWEN, JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. Fla. Apt. Ass'n, Inc. v. Dansyear, 347 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ce at trial established the defense of the statute of frauds 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 spo…
-
Gregory v. Gregory, 289 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…ause of insufficient records must number in the hundreds. In many instances, e. g., Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. King, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 294; Maine Ins. Co. v. Raser, Fla.App.1970, 240 So. 2d 163; Reichek v. Fla. Bond & Mortgage Co., Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 83, cert. denied, Fla.1970, 240 So. 2d 644, it would seem that any arguable obstacle to a consideration of the case on its merits caused by the non-existence of documents or portions of transcripts in the appellate record could have been overcome by a…
-
Nemeth v. de Lauega, 354 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. Town OF Eatonville, 203 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Carpenter v. State, 176 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Gleim v. Gleim, 176 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Bostwick v. Mollie Netcher Bostwick, 201 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)