INDICO CORPORATION, MAYER MORGANROTH & MARTIN KOPITZ, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
GREENMAN ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES, INC., 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.
Appellants challenged a trial court judgment in a breach of contract case, alleging serious procedural irregularities including denial of a continuance, refusal to grant adequate trial time, and lack of a court reporter. The appellate court found the record inadequate to review the merits and remanded for reconstruction of the trial proceedings.
The appellate court did not reach the merits of appellants' contentions because the record was inadequate. The court found that if the allegations were supported by an adequate record, reversal and remand would likely be required, but the opposing party denied the errors occurred, necessitating record reconstruction.
[1] An appellate court may relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court to allow for reconstruction of the trial record when the existing record is inadequate to address the me…
[2] A party's inability to obtain a trial transcript due to the absence of a court reporter or reconstruction efforts may constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Appellant raises several issues which, if supported by the record, indicate that a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred in the trial of this case. However, appellee denies all of the appellant's contentions and the record is inadequate to reach the merits of the case because there is no transcript of the trial proceedings and no effort was made to reconstruct them.”
Establishes the fundamental problem: serious allegations of trial error cannot be reviewed without an adequate record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee sued Indico Corporation and individual defendants Morganroth and Kopitz for approximately $100,000 in breach of contract, with the individual…
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 Reconstruction Of Record cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Chief Judge.
Appellant raises several issues which, if supported by the record, indicate that a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred in the trial of this case. However, appellee denies all of the appellant’s contentions and the record is inadequate to reach the merits of the case because there is no transcript of the trial proceedings and no effort was made to reconstruct them.
Briefly, appellee sued Indico Corporation, a Michigan corporation, Mayer Morganroth and Martin Kopitz, residents of Michigan, seeking approximately $100,000 for breach of contract. The individual defendants were sued as guarantors. On the eve of trial Florida counsel withdrew; the trial was not continued; and Morganroth, a Michigan lawyer, attempted to try the case on behalf of the defendants.
Appellants claim the trial court refused to grant them a continuance although Florida counsel, before withdrawing, suggested to the trial court one should be granted. Appellants contend Morganroth had insufficient time to prepare the case for trial. They next complain that even though the trial commenced at 11:00 a. m., and the appellee rested at 1:00 p. m., the trial judge forced appellants, under pain of contempt, to complete their case by 2:00 p. m. Lastly, appellants maintain that they were required to proceed to trial without a court reporter, thus precluding them from obtaining a transcript of the proceedings.
The foregoing are serious contentions, which, if supported by an adequate record, would probably require reversal and remand for a new trial. However, appellee states that none of the judicial acts assigned as error took place. Thus, it is imperative that the record be reconstructed if the merits of the case are to be reached.
Accordingly, we relinquish jurisdiction of this cause to the trial court for a period of 30 days so that the trial court and counsel can reconstruct the record.1 After the record is filed in this court appellant shall have 10 days to file a supplemental brief and appellee shall have 10 days after receipt of appellant’s supplemental brief to file its supplemental brief if they be so advised.
CROSS and LETTS, JJ., concur. . See The Travelers Insurance Company v. Agricultural Delivery Service, 262 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1972), for suggested guidelines only. This does not indicate a concurrence with the totality of the decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sys. Mgmt. Assocs., Inc. v. State, 391 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)….) Therefore, a motion for rehearing must be both timely and authorized in order to fall within the tolling provision of Rule 9.020(g). See, Wagner v. Bieiey, Wagner & Associates, Inc., 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1972); “M” Enterprises, Inc. v. Baumgartner, 362 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Gordon v. Barley, 383 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). There is no language in either Florida Statutes or the Model Rules of Procedure, Chapter 28, Florida Administrative Code, which authorizes a hearing officer to entertain a mo…
-
Taylor v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 520 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 1988)…n by statute or rule. Compare Systems Management Assoc., Inc. v. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 391 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Gordon v. Barley, 383 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); “M” Enterprises, Inc. v. Baumgartner, 362 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Rather, we are considering the inherent power of an agency to correct clerical errors and errors arising from mistake or inadvertence in its own orders. All parties to this proceeding agree that agencies possess the inherent pow…
-
Alimenta (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Pender Peanut Co., 389 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…y, and a motion to reconsider its entry is not authorized by Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.530(a). Thus, the filing and pendency of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the time for taking an appeal. “M ” Enterprises, Inc. v. Baumgartner, 362 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., and LILES, WOODIE A., Associate Judge (Retired), concur.…
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
- The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Agric. Delivery Serv., 262 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)