Bonard v. Bonard

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bonard v. Bonard

870 So. 2d 39, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 13905, 2003 WL 22103495

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 12, 2003

DocketNo. 2D02-2832

StatusPublished

This text of 870 So. 2d 39 (Bonard v. Bonard) 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

Bonard v. Bonard, 870 So. 2d 39, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 13905, 2003 WL 22103495 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Patricia Bonard appeals and Terence Bonard cross-appeals the amended final judgment that dissolved their marriage. We affirm because the record is inadequate to show reversible error.

After a two-day final hearing, the circuit court resolved all issues in a detailed final judgment, which was then amended to correct a scrivener’s error. Because no court reporter attended the first day of the final hearing, our record does not contain a complete transcript of the proceedings. We relinquished jurisdiction to permit the parties to reconstruct the record of the proceedings that day pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(a)(4) or 9.200(b)(4), but they were unable to do so. Therefore, we affirm. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1980); Gordon v. Burke, 429 So.2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

Affirmed.

COVINGTON and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Patricia Bonard appeals and Terence Bonard cross-appeals the amended final judgment that dissolved their marriage. We affirm because the record is inadequate to show reversible error.

After a two-day final hearing, the circuit court resolved all issues in a detailed final judgment, which was then amended to correct a scrivener’s error. Because no court reporter attended the first day of the final hearing, our record does not contain a complete transcript of the proceedings. We relinquished jurisdiction to permit the parties to reconstruct the record of the proceedings that day pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(a)(4) or 9.200(b)(4), but they were unable to do so. Therefore, we affirm. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1980); Gordon v. Burke, 429 So.2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

Affirmed.

COVINGTON and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

870 So. 2d 39, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 13905, 2003 WL 22103495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonard-v-bonard-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack