WILLIAM A. HALLER ET UX., APPELLANTS,
v.
SANTONA LAND CORPORATION, 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.
Haller appealed an adverse judgment quieting his title against any interest claimed by Santona Land Corporation. The appellate court affirmed the judgment because appellants failed to provide a transcript of trial testimony, making it impossible to review the trial court's findings of fact.
The appellate court affirmed the judgment because appellants failed to provide a certified record of trial proceedings. Without a transcript, the court could not review whether the findings of fact were supported by evidence, and thus could not hold the trial court in error.
[1] A judgment from a trial court is presumed correct on appeal.
[2] The burden of demonstrating error in a trial court's findings and conclusions rests on the appellants.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Such judgment reaches this court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the findings possess the quality of a jury verdict. The burden of demonstrating error in the findings and conclusions of the trial court rests on the appellants.”
Establishes the standard of review and the burden on appellants to demonstrate error in the trial court's findings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered a final judgment quieting the plaintiff's title as against any interest held or claimed by the defendants. The trial court mad…
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 Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendants have appealed an adverse judgment quieting plaintiff’s title as against any interest held or claimed by them. They contend that the findings of fact made by the trial court and recited in its final judgment are not supported by competent and substantial evidence; that the court erred in denying the proffer of evidence made by them during the trial; and, that the conclusions of law reached by the trial court and recited in the final judgment are erroneous.
We have carefully examined the final judgment here assaulted and conclude that if the findings of fact appearing therein are accepted as true, the conclusions of law based thereon are correct and accord with established principles of law. Such judgment reaches this court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the findings possess the quality of a jury verdict.1 The burden of demonstrating error in the findings and conclusions of the trial court rests on the appellants.2
From the briefs it appears that the testimony adduced by the witnesses during the trial of this case before the court was not reported and, therefore, no transcript of such proceedings is included in the record on appeal. The only support appellants offer for the position they take is the recollection of the testimony by their attorney *592as recited in their brief. Such recollection may not be accepted as a substitute for a certified record of the trial proceedings or as a basis for holding the trial court in error. Because of the failure of appellants to bring to this court a record of the evidence on which the trial court acted and based its findings and conclusions, we have no option but to affirm the judgment appealed.
Affirmed.
SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wing v. Wing, 464 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…cord was preserved. “Without a sufficient record, the appellate court may not properly consider the [factual] points on appeal and must affirm_” Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, 336 So. 2d 665, 666 (Fla. 4th DCA [*1345] 1976); Haller v. Santona Land Corp., 275 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Starks v. Starks, 423 So. 2d 452, 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Our review in these circumstances accordingly should not address the factual particulars of the dispute and should be confined strictly to appellant’s contention that a…
-
Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, 336 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…Pierson v. Sharp, 283 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). It may be added that the recollections of counsel as to what was said and done in chancery are no substitute on appeal for a certified transcript of the proceedings. Haller v. Santona Land Corp., 275 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Pryor v. Pryor, 274 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Accordingly, we have no option but to affirm the decisions of the chancellor. Affirmed. WALDEN, CROSS and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.…
-
Strickland v. Lewis, 328 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…does not contain the testimony adduced and considered at the final hearing. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed. See Jackson v. Granger Lumber Company, Inc., 275 So. 2d 555 (Fla.App. 1st 1973); and Haller v. Santona Land Corp., 275 So. 2d 591 (Fla.App. 1st 1973). Affirmed. McCORD, Acting C. J., SMITH, J., and FULLER, RICHARD S., Associate Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin v. Green, 134 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)