JOHN MORIARTY & ASSOC. OF FLORIDA
v.
THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORP.
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.
In the absence of a trial transcript, an appellate court cannot reverse a trial court's order enforcing a settlement agreement when no legal error is apparent on the face of the order.
[1] When an appellant fails to provide a transcript of trial proceedings, an appellate court cannot reverse the trial court's judgment absent legal error apparent on the face…
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“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”
Citation to Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee explaining the standard for appellate review when trial transcript is absent
John Moriarty & Associates of Florida appealed a circuit court order enforcing a settlement agreement with Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corporation. The appe…
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 Review Without Transcript cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLER, J.
In the absence of a transcript of the lower court proceedings, and finding no legal error apparent on the face of the order enforcing the settlement agreement, we cannot conclude the trial court erred in rendering the order under review and therefore affirm. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.
Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”); see also Hamilton v. Florida Power & Light Co., 48 So. 3d 170, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“When there is a nonjury finding on disputed evidence [in an order enforcing settlement], it is reviewed on appeal for competent, substantial evidence because the lower court ‘is in the best position to evaluate and weigh the testimony and evidence.’”) (quoting Acoustic Innovations, Inc. v. Schafer, 976 So. 2d 1139, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whipple v. Dawson (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Guardian AD Litem Program v. Times Publ'g Co., 976 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Acoustic Innovations, Inc. v. Carey Schafer, 976 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Hamilton v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 48 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Dep't OF Revenue o/b/o Sharon M. Simmons v. Bryant Wardlaw, 48 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)