MOSES JOHNSON AND MARY A. JOHNSON, HIS WIFE, AND JANIE HARRIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN M. ROBERTS 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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decree regarding the homestead status of land owned by Mingo Roberts and the property rights of his widow, finding that appellants failed to provide an authenticated transcript of trial testimony necessary for appellate review.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decree because appellants failed to provide an authenticated transcript of the testimony, which is essential for appellate review. Without the testimony transcript, the court could not review the merits of the questions raised on appeal.
“It is a fundamental premise in appellate procedure that the decree of the lower court comes to us with the presumption of correctness and that the burden is upon the appellant to show it is erroneous.”
Establishes the foundational appellate standard that appellants must overcome the presumption of lower court correctness
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMingo Roberts died in 1931. The lower court held a trial with numerous witnesses to determine whether the land in question was Roberts's homestead at …
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 Appellate Burden Of Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Justice.
The questions raised in this appeal require a consideration of the evidence which was taken before the lower court and on the basis of which the decree was rendered. It is apparent from the record that many witnesses appeared before the chancellor and testified with reference to whether the land involved in this proceeding was or was not thé homestead of Mingo Roberts at the time of his death in 1931 and the many collateral issues involved in the litigation such as the question of whether the widow of Mingo Roberts, who continued to reside on the property following her husband’s death, occupied the same as a life tenant or as a claimant of the fee simple title by virtue of a specific devise in the will of her late husband. While the record before us contains what appears to be most of the exhibits' introduced in the trial of that cause, there is no’authenticated transcript of the testimony to which we may turn for the purpose of disposing of the questions raised by appellants. There is an abortive attempt in the transcript to furnish this deficiency but such is wholly ineffectual for that purpose. Not having before us any authenticated transcript of the' testimony taken before the lower court, the record-.affords no basis whatever for us to pass upon the Questions, raised in thfe appeal., .
It is a fundamental premise in appellate procedure that the decree of the lower court comes to us with the presumption of correctness and that the burden is upon the appellant to show it is .erroneous. This the appellants have wholly failed to do. The decree appealed from must be and the'same is hereby affirmed., .
MATHEWS, C. J., and TERRELL and THOMAS, JJ., concur. ‘
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Larson v. Lesser, 106 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1958)…f the chancellor should receive in this court should be determined. The ap-pellee insists that the chancellor’s ruling in this case arrived here with a presumption of correctness. To support the statement we are referred to Johnson v. Roberts, Fla., 79 So. 2d 425, and Picchi v. Picchi, Fla., 100 So. 2d 627. In the former, the court was asked to reverse a decree based on evidence taken before the chancellor which did not appear here in an authenticated transcript. In the latter, a divorce case, the court deal…
-
Berkman v. Miami Nat'l Bank, 143 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…2d 639. In order to entitle an appellant to reversal, it is incumbent upon him to demonstrate harmful error in some action of the trial judge in the proceeding, resulting in the order, judgment or decree under review. Johnson v. Roberts, Fla.1955, 79 So. 2d 425; Bates v. Brady, Fla.App.1961, 126 So. 2d 750. It is also a recognized principle of appellate procedure that if a trial judge’s order, judgment or decree can be sustained under any theory revealed by the record on appeal, notwithstanding the fact th…
-
Dade Cnty. v. Oolite Rock Co., 311 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…mnors (Dade County) are not unduly or unreasonably penalized. But, when the determination of the trial court reaches the District Court of Appeal it comes before us clothed with a presumption of correctness. See, e.g., Johnson v. Roberts, Fla.1955, 79 So. 2d 425; Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., Fla.1962, 137 So. 2d 222; Weiss v. Stone, Fla.App. 1969, 220 So. 2d 403; Benedict v. Dade County Realty, Inc., Fla.App.1973, 274 So. 2d 553. Appellate judges are not seers, free to engage in the luxury of substituting our “b…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence