Alderman v. Tyndall Federal Credit Union

656 So. 2d 583, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7081, 1995 WL 363322
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 20, 1995·No. No. 94-98·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s decision comes to this court clothed with a presumption of correct[584] ness, and the burden was upon appellants to demonstrate error. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1979). A transcript of the trial proceedings was not furnished to this court nor did appellants submit a stipulated statement of the evidence. See Rule 9.200(b)(4) and (e), Fla. R.App.P. Under the circumstances, appellants have failed to demonstrate reversible error, and we AFFIRM.

BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

Alderman v. Tyndall Federal Credit Union, 656 So. 2d 583, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7081, 1995 WL 363322 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

656 So. 2d 583 (Alderman v. Tyndall Federal Credit Union) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cirillo v. Davis
732 So. 2d 387 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)