LEILA WILLIAMS MERRITT AND OPHELIA R. BROOKS, APPELLANTS,
v.
DANIEL WILLIAMS AND CORINE MERRITT A/K/A CORINE WILLIAMS, 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 ejectment action involving property ownership and possession in Duval County, appellants challenged the trial court's judgment but failed to provide an adequate appellate record, including the crucial stipulation of facts and evidence regarding whether a conveyance was made for consideration. The appellate court affirmed the judgment because the incomplete record prevented meaningful review.
The appellate court cannot properly review a case unless the record reveals all evidence and proceedings that were before the trial court and are material to the points on appeal. Absent a record demonstrating errors of law, the trial court's findings and judgment are presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal.
[1] An appellate court cannot consider a case unless the record reveals all evidence and proceedings material to the points on appeal.
[2] A trial court's findings and judgment are presumed correct on appeal and will not be disturbed absent a record demonstrating legal error.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“an appellate court may not properly consider a case unless the record, by one of the methods provided by the Florida Appellate Rules, reveals all evidence and proceedings which were before the trial court which are material to a resolution of the points on appeal”
Establishes the fundamental requirement for an adequate appellate record
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants and appellees disputed possession and ownership of a parcel of property in Duval County. The trial court issued a final judgment that refer…
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 Trial Court Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Judge.
Appellants were plaintiffs in an ejectment action below. Appellees were defendants. The action involved possession and ownership of a certain parcel of property in Duval County. The final judgment contains a recitation that the parties stipulated to certain facts. One of the material issues before the trial court was whether a certain conveyance had been made for consideration. The record before us is totally devoid of any evidence on that issue. Indeed, the record on appeal consists only of the complaint, answer, copies of two deeds, the final judgment and certain post-trial motions, orders and notices. The stipulation referred to in the final judgment, if written, is not a part of the record and, if oral, has apparently not been reduced to writing. During oral arguments the attorneys for the respective parties argued various testimony alleged to have been before the trial judge but it is not before us. We presume, but do not know, that the various hearings before the judge were unreported. Although the Florida Appellate Rules provide for a stipulated record in such instances we have none.
The law is well settled that an appellate court may not properly consider a case unless the record, by one of the methods provided by the Florida Appellate Rules, reveals all evidence and proceedings which were before the trial court which are material to a resolution of the points on appeal. (Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Simpson, Fla.App. (1st) 1961, 128 So. 2d 420; Croft v. Young, Fla.App. (1st) 1966, 188 So. 2d 859)
The law is equally well settled that the findings and judgment of the trial court come to us clothed with a presumption of correctness and may not be disturbed upon appeal in the absence of a record demonstrating errors of law. (See 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, Sections 159, 314, 346 and 347, and cases therein cited.)
The Supreme Court of Florida has repeatedly admonished district courts to beware of substituting appellate factual judgment for that of the trier of facts. Westerman v. Shell’s City Inc., Sup.Ct.Fla. 1972, 265 So. 2d 43; Exchange Bank of St. Augustine v. The Florida National Bank of Jacksonville, Sup.Ct.Fla. 1974, 292 So. 2d 361, opinion filed February 13, 1974.
There being no error demonstrated by the record before us, the final judgment appealed from is
Affirmed.
SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
White v. White, 306 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…ss the record, by one of the methods provided by the Florida Appellate Rules, reveals all evidence and proceedings which were before the trial court which are material to a resolution of the points on appeal. (Merritt v. Williams, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 295 So. 2d 310 and cases therein-cited.) The law is equally well settled that the findings and judgment of the trial court come to us clothed with a presumption of correctness and may not be disturbed upon appeal in the absence of a record demonstrating errors of…
-
Horton v. Horton, 330 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…e have held that an appellate court may not consider a case unless the record reveals all evidence and proceedings which were before the trial court which are material to a resolution of the points on appeal. (Merritt v. Williams, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 295 So. 2d 310; White v. White, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 306 So. 2d 608) As there is no transcript of the hearing below bearing on the issue of the interpretation of paragraph seven of the final judgment of divorce I am of the view that this Court is unable to make a me…
-
Valladares v. Junco-Valladares, 30 So. 3d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…proceedings is abuse of discretion. “The findings and judgment of the trial court come to us clothed with a presumption of correctness and may not be disturbed upon appeal in the absence of a record demonstrating errors of law.” Merritt v. Williams, 295 So. 2d 310, 311 (Fla. 1st [*523] DCA 1974). Beyond this deferential standard of review, the husband in the instant action is disadvantaged because he represented himself pro se at trial and failed to preserve issues that he now appeals. Dade County School Bd.…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Westerman v. Shell's City, Inc., 265 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1972)
- Exch. Bank OF ST. Augustine v. The Fla. Nat'l Bank OF Jacksonville, 292 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1974)
- Gaskill v. Montague, 128 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Simpson, 128 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Croft v. Young, 188 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)