Colvin Cenac v. Franckline Francois

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 23, 2024
Docket3D2024-0828
StatusPublished

This text of Colvin Cenac v. Franckline Francois (Colvin Cenac v. Franckline Francois) 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
Colvin Cenac v. Franckline Francois, (Fla. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 23, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0828 Lower Tribunal No. 23-17046 FC ________________

Colvin Cenac, Appellant,

vs.

Franckline Francois, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marcia Del Rey, Judge.

Colvin Cenac, in proper person.

Franckline Francois, in proper person.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Because the Appellant has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate

reversible error, we affirm. See 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. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court

reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to

require reversal.”); Pierre v. Bueven, 276 So. 3d 917, 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)

(“Because there is no transcript of the final hearing, this Court is unable to

determine whether there was competent, substantial evidence presented

below that permitted the lower court to properly evaluate the section

61.13(3)(a)-(t) factors when it made its parental responsibility and time-

sharing determinations.”); Montas v. Del Valle, 773 So. 2d 68, 68 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1997) (“A father seeks review of an order which contains a substantial

upward modification in his child support obligations. Because the record

does not include a transcript of the evidentiary proceedings before the

general master or the trial judge, we have no choice but to affirm.”).

Affirmed.

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

Related

Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee
377 So. 2d 1150 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)
Montas v. Del Valle
773 So. 2d 68 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Colvin Cenac v. Franckline Francois, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colvin-cenac-v-franckline-francois-fladistctapp-2024.