DAVID FONSECA
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA
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.
An appellate court cannot review a trial court's judgment on the merits when the record of trial proceedings is incomplete or absent.
[1] An appellant's failure to provide a complete record of trial proceedings on appeal forecloses appellate review of the trial court's judgment on its merits.
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 [and] [w]ithout knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”
Court's rationale for affirming despite incomplete appellate record, citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979)
David Fonseca appealed a judgment from County Court in Broward County. The appeal lacked a complete record of the trial 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 Appellate Review Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Terri-Ann Miller, Judge; L.T. Case No. COSO20008632.
David Fonseca, Weston, pro se. No appearance for appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. 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 [and] [w]ithout knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”). FORST, KLINGENSMITH and ARTAU, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.