CARTERET SAVINGS BANK, F.A., APPELLANT,
v.
HOWARD C. RIVERS, ETC., 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.
Carteret Savings Bank sought to foreclose on a mortgage after the borrower defaulted, but after Hurricane Andrew and settlement negotiations, the trial court reinstated the mortgage and established a distribution plan for insurance proceeds. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding it unable to review the judgment due to incomplete transcripts of the proceedings.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that without a complete record of proceedings, it cannot conclude that the trial court's judgment was unsupported by evidence, rested on an alternative theory, or reflected a misconception of law requiring reversal.
[1] An appellate court cannot properly conclude that a trial court's judgment is unsupported by evidence or an alternative theory, or that the trial judge misconceived the la…
[2] The absence of transcripts for crucial hearings prevents an appellate court from reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence or the legal basis for a trial court's judgment…
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“because the order under review was the end product of a number of hearings for which there are no transcripts, without a complete record of proceedings, this court cannot properly conclude that the trial court's judgment was not supported by evidence or by an alternative theory, nor can we conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require a reversal”
Establishes the standard of review and the effect of missing transcripts on appellate review
Carteret Savings Bank held a mortgage on a Dade County property and the mortgagor (Howard Rivers) was in default. The bank moved for summary judgment …
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 Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Carteret Savings Bank, the mortgagee in this ease, now under conservatorship to the Resolution Trust Corporation, argued that its mortgagor was in default and sought foreclosure of the mortgage it held on a Dade property. The mortgagee moved for summary judgment in its favor. Hurricane An drew then hit South Florida. Thereafter, a number of hearings were held on the proper resolution of the parties’ dispute, in light of the mortgagor’s prior missed payments and post-Andrew insurance funds which had become available. At several crucial hearings on the matter, no transcripts of proceedings were made. Both parties concede, however, that a settlement of sorts was ultimately reached, and reflected in the trial judge’s order which reinstated the mortgage and instructed how the insurance proceeds should be distributed. Several months after this resolution, the mortgagee and mortgagor returned to court once more, each side claiming that the trial judge’s instructions had not been followed. Finally adopting the mortgagor’s position, the trial judge determined that his previous decision controlled.
Here, because the order under review was the end product of a number of hearings for which there are no transcripts, without a complete record of proceedings, this court cannot properly conclude that the trial court’s judgment was not supported by evidence or by an alternative theory, nor can we conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require a reversal. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979). Glace & Radcliffe, Inc. v. City of Live Oak, 471 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Gordon v. Burke, 429 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 438 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1983).
Accordingly, we affirm the order under review.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Gordon v. Burke, 429 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Glace & Radcliffe, Inc. v. City OF Live OAK, 471 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)