SOLOMON BROWN
v.
U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR LS11 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST; UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF SOLOMON BROWN; UNKNOWN TENANT #1; AND UNKNOWN TENANT #2
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.
An appellant's failure to organize arguments under cogent and distinct issues on appeal and failure to provide an adequate trial transcript or record of evidence justifies affirmance of the trial court's judgment.
[1] An appellate court may decline to consider an appeal when the appellant fails to organize arguments under cogent and distinct issues.
[2] In the absence of a trial transcript or adequate record of evidence, an appellate court will presume that the evidence presented was sufficiently competent and substantia…
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“the failure to organize arguments under cogent and distinct issues on appeal presents sufficient reason for an appellate court to decline consideration of a matter”
Court citing F.M.W. Props., Inc. v. Peoples First Fin. Sav. & Loan Ass'n for the standard that disorganized appellate arguments justify declining review
Solomon Brown, proceeding pro se, appealed a judgment in a case involving U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as trustee. Brown failed to provide a proper trial tra…
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
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See F.M.W. Props., Inc. v. Peoples First Fin. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 606 So. 2d 372, 377–78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (“We note, however, that the failure to organize arguments under cogent and distinct issues on appeal presents sufficient reason for an appellate court to decline consideration of a matter.”); cf. Redditt v. State, 84 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1955); see also Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n. 46 (1975) (“The right of self-representation is not a license . . . not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive
law.”); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (explaining that “[i]n appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error,” so “the lack of a trial transcript or a proper substitute” results in a record that is “inadequate to demonstrate reversible error” and requires affirmance); Schmidt v. Reyes, 274 So. 2d 242, 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) (explaining that in absence of trial transcript and record of evidence adduced, we will assume “that the evidence adduced before the court was sufficiently competent and substantial to support the action taken”).
ROWE, C.J., and ROBERTS and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- F.M.W. Props., Inc. v. Peoples First Fin. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 606 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Pryor v. Pryor, 274 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)