RAYESS
v.
BITAR
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.
Without a trial transcript, an appellate court cannot review whether a trial court's decisions on alimony and equitable distribution are supported by evidence and must affirm unless fundamental error appears on the face of the order.
[1] Without a trial transcript, an appellate court cannot review whether a trial court's decisions on alimony and equitable distribution are supported by evidence and must af…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“fundamental error appears on the face of the appealed order”
The court stated the standard for affirmance when no trial transcript is available
Mayada Rayess appealed a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Joseph Bitar. The appeal lacked a transcript of the trial court proceedings.…
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 Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
MAYADA RAYESS,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D18-1894
JOSEPH BITAR,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed October 19, 2018
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Alicia L. Latimore, Judge.
Mayada Rayess, Orlando, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The former wife, Mayada Rayess, appeals the final judgment dissolving her marriage to the former husband, Joseph Bitar. Because we do not have a transcript of the proceedings below, we cannot address the former wife’s contention that the trial court’s decision on the issues of alimony and equitable distribution are without evidentiary support. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). Thus, we must affirm unless the former wife can demonstrate that “fundamental
2 error appears on the face of the appealed order.” Murphy v. Murphy, 948 So. 2d 864, 865 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). The former wife has made no such showing in this case.
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, TORPY and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Somma v. Metra Elecs. Corp., 727 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Murphy v. Murphy, 948 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)