THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
DEAN AND ARLENE CHRISTMAN, 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 Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appealed a trial court's order modifying child support, alleging the court failed to make specific findings when deviating from statutory guideline amounts. The appellate court remanded the case for proper preparation of a statement of evidence because no court reporter was present at the hearing and the submitted statement did not comply with procedural rules.
The appellate court could not review the appeal on the merits due to the lack of a proper record. The court remanded to the trial court to allow the Department to submit a properly prepared statement of evidence in compliance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4), rather than summarily affirming for lack of a sufficient record.
[1] An appellate court may remand a case for the submission of a properly prepared statement of the evidence when a transcript is unavailable and the submitted statement does…
[2] A statement of the evidence submitted in lieu of a transcript must be settled and approved by the lower tribunal to be included in the record.
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“If no report of the proceedings was made, or if a transcript is unavailable, the appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means, including the appellant's recollection.”
Establishes the procedural rule allowing statements of evidence when no transcript exists, which governs how the Department must proceed on remand.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final hearing was held on March 2, 1993, in which the Department moved to hold the Christmans in contempt for failure to pay child support, sought s…
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 Statement Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWRENCE, Judge.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) appeals a final order modifying child support, claiming that the trial court erred in departing from the presumptive statutory guideline amounts for child support without making specific findings to explain the deviation. We remand for submission of a properly prepared statement of the evidence, in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). A final hearing was held on March 2, 1993, upon the following motions filed by the Department against Dean and Arlene Christ-man: motion to hold them in contempt for failure to pay present and past due child support; motion for sanctions for their failure to respond to discovery; and motion to increase child support. The Christmans were present at the hearing but were not represented by counsel. Significant testimony regarding their net income and deductions apparently was taken at this hearing, but a transcript of the proceedings is not available for review because no court reporter was present.
On appeal, in lieu of a transcript, the Department submitted a “Statement of Evidence” pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4), which provides in relevant part:
If no report of the proceedings was made, or if a transcript is unavailable, the appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means, including the appellant’s recollection. The statement shall be served on the appellee, who may serve objections or proposed amendments to it within 10 days of service. Thereafter, the statement and any objections or proposed amendments shall be submitted to the lower tribunal for settlement and approval. As settled and approved, the statement shall be included by the clerk of the lower tribunal in the record.
We cannot accept the submitted statement in lieu of a transcript because it does not comply with rule 9.200(b)(4). There is no approval by the trial court, and thus no confirmation that the Christmans were afforded an appropriate opportunity to be heard as to the content of the statement; in addition, the statement was not made a part of the record in this case, but merely submitted as an appendix to the Department’s brief. There are serious and important issues raised in this case which persuade us to remand even in the absence of an objection by the appellees.
If a statement cannot be prepared in accordance with this rule, the appeal is subject to affirmance due to the appellant’s failure to present a record demonstrating reversible error. Wood v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 535 So. 2d 340, 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); see also Walt v. Walt, 596 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
While we have authority to summarily affirm for lack of a sufficient record, we find that justice would be better served in this ease by giving the Department an opportunity to prepare a proper statement of the evidence. See Jones v. Jones, 359 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Accordingly, we relinquish jurisdiction of this case to the trial court for a period of sixty days, in order to permit the Department to submit a proper record.
BOOTH and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seal Prods. v. Mansfield, 705 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…on appeal. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); Larjim Mgmt. Corp. v. Capital Bank, 554 So. 2d 587, 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Crusaw v. Crusaw, 637 So. 2d 949, 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); State, Department of HRS v. Christman, 635 So. 2d 94, 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Walt v. Walt, 596 So. 2d 761, 762 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Dinn v. Haynes, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1621, (Fla. 4th DCA July 2, 1997); Balsam v. South Palm Beach Fin. Corp., 695 So. 2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Those cases have…
-
Jacobs v. Jacques, 310 So. 3d 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…or settlement and approval."). The statement is of little use to us. There is no indication that the parties and the trial court followed the procedures outlined in rule 9.200(b)(5). See, e.g., State, Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Christman, 635 So. 2d 94, 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) ("We cannot accept the submitted statement in lieu of a transcript because it does not comply with rule 9.200(b) [where there was] no confirmation that the Christmans were afforded an appropriate - 4 - opportunity to be hear…
-
Wells v. Wells (Fla. 1st DCA 2026)…nscribed); Montgomery Truck Lines v. Southworth, 550 So. 2d 567, 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (same). At other times, this Court has relinquished jurisdiction with little explanation at all. See, e.g., State, Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Christman, 635 So. 2d 94, 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (relinquishing jurisdiction because “justice would be better served” by giving the Department an opportunity to prepare a proper statement); E.H. v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 571 So. 2d 50, 50–51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (r…
Authorities Cited
- Walt v. Walt, 596 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Jones v. Jones, 359 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Wood v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Dep't of the Navy, 535 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)