16:9 CINEMA LLC
v.
SERGIO F. BROK
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.
When an appellate record lacks a transcript of the hearing on a motion to set aside a judgment and the underlying issues are factual, the appellate court must affirm because it cannot properly resolve the factual disputes.
[1] When an appellate record lacks a transcript of a trial or hearing and the issues on appeal are factual in nature, the appellate court must affirm the trial court's judgme…
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“When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. 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.”
Court's rationale for affirmance, quoting Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979).
16:9 Cinema LLC obtained an ex parte final judgment against Sergio F. Brok based on Brok's alleged default under a settlement agreement. Brok moved to…
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 Factual Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant 16:9 Cinema LLC appeals a final judgment setting aside and then modifying a final judgment. It had obtained the judgment ex parte pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement, based on Appellee Sergio F. Brok’s default under the agreement. The Appellee’s motion to set aside the final judgment alleged that the Appellee had substantially complied with the settlement agreement and that Appellant had agreed to accept that compliance. Because these allegations are factual, and because the record before us contains no transcript of the specially set hearing which led to the modified final judgment under review, we are unable to determine if the trial court erred and therefore are constrained to affirm. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. 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.”).
Affirmed.