Baum v. Baum

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Baum v. Baum

831 So. 2d 791, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 17827, 2002 WL 31728696

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 6, 2002

DocketNo. 5D01-3589

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 831 So. 2d 791 (Baum v. Baum) 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

Baum v. Baum, 831 So. 2d 791, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 17827, 2002 WL 31728696 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

Mark B. Baum [“husband”] appeals an order modifying a final judgment of dissolution. We are bound to affirm on issues I, II, IV and V because husband has failed to provide an adequate record for this court to review the actions by the trial court and make a determination of error. Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979). As for issue III, this court does not have jurisdiction to review an order entered after the filing of the notice of appeal. We elect not to sua sponte amend the notice of appeal for this subsequently entered order because our research reveals that the argument lacks merit. Ford v. Ford, 816 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Sealander v. Sealander, 789 So.2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), Wallace v. Department of Revenue, 774 So.2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.

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

GRIFFIN, J.

Mark B. Baum [“husband”] appeals an order modifying a final judgment of dissolution. We are bound to affirm on issues I, II, IV and V because husband has failed to provide an adequate record for this court to review the actions by the trial court and make a determination of error. Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979). As for issue III, this court does not have jurisdiction to review an order entered after the filing of the notice of appeal. We elect not to sua sponte amend the notice of appeal for this subsequently entered order because our research reveals that the argument lacks merit. Ford v. Ford, 816 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Sealander v. Sealander, 789 So.2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), Wallace v. Department of Revenue, 774 So.2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

831 So. 2d 791, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 17827, 2002 WL 31728696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baum-v-baum-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack