RICHARD C. MOORE

v.

SALLY R. MOORE

2 Appellant, Richard Moore, and Appellee, Sally Moore, were divorced in 2003. Pursuant to the parties’ marital settlement agreement, Appellant was required to pay alimony and a portion of his pension benefits and savings plan. Following years of his failure to make the required payments, Appellee obtained a judgment against Appellant in the amount of $376,292.14 and, eventually, a writ of garnishment. Appellant filed a claim of exemption pursuant to section 222.11, Florida Statutes (2020), arguing that he was head of family and that his current spouse was his dependent. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Appellant’s claim of exemption, and this appeal followed. A debtor claiming the head of family exemption has the burden of proving entitlement to the exemption. Ulisano v. Ulisano, 154 So. 3d 507, 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). “Whether an individual is a head of family is a question to be resolved on the facts of each case.” Holden v. Gardner’s Est., 420 So. 2d 1082, 1083 (Fla. 1982). “[A]n appellate court must presume that a trial court’s decision is correct unless the appellant provides the appellate court with a record that is sufficient to evaluate the appellant’s contentions of error.” Harrison v. Harrison, 909 So. 2d 318, 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Without a transcript of an evidentiary hearing, review is limited to errors of law that

3 are apparent on the face of the record. Fugina v. Fugina, 874 So. 2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Appellant has not included in the appellate record a transcript of the hearing. The trial court’s order indicates that it was entered pursuant to “the file, hearing argument of counsel for both Parties,” and “the testimony of the called witnesses” at the hearing. Because Appellant has not provided this Court with a transcript of the hearing, we are unable to review the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing to resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). Additionally, the order contains no reversible error on its face. Accordingly, Appellant has failed to demonstrate error and this Court must affirm. See id. (“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.”).