Adams v. Zarate

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Adams v. Zarate

955 So. 2d 49, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 4429, 2007 WL 837189

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 21, 2007

DocketNo. 3D05-1813

StatusPublished

This text of 955 So. 2d 49 (Adams v. Zarate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Zarate, 955 So. 2d 49, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 4429, 2007 WL 837189 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Danny Lee Adams, (“former husband”), appeals the trial court’s order approving the general master’s report and income deduction order awarding Debora Jo Za-rate, (“former wife”), child support payments. The former husband raises numerous points on appeal, but has failed to present a transcript of the proceedings or prepare a factual statement of the proceedings. Thus, the record presented is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error. See Schmitt v. Maile, 946 So.2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Mayfield v. Mayfield, 929 So.2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, [50]*50377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979). Accordingly, we must affirm.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Danny Lee Adams, (“former husband”), appeals the trial court’s order approving the general master’s report and income deduction order awarding Debora Jo Za-rate, (“former wife”), child support payments. The former husband raises numerous points on appeal, but has failed to present a transcript of the proceedings or prepare a factual statement of the proceedings. Thus, the record presented is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error. See Schmitt v. Maile, 946 So.2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Mayfield v. Mayfield, 929 So.2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, [50]*50377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979). Accordingly, we must affirm.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

955 So. 2d 49, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 4429, 2007 WL 837189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-zarate-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack