Contreras v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Contreras v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon

259 So. 3d 310

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 5, 2018

DocketNo. 3D18-36

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 So. 3d 310 (Contreras v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon) 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

Contreras v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 259 So. 3d 310 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (holding: "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 cannot 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. The trial court should have been affirmed because the record brought forward by the appellant is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error.") See also New England Ins. Co. v. Int'l Bank of Miami, N.A., 537 So.2d 1025, 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (holding: "Even though it consists only of citations of authority without further explanation, a per curiam decision of the appellate court is the law of the case between the same parties on the same issues and facts, and determines all issues necessarily involved in the appeal, whether mentioned in the court's opinion or not.")

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (holding: "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 cannot 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. The trial court should have been affirmed because the record brought forward by the appellant is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error.") See also New England Ins. Co. v. Int'l Bank of Miami, N.A., 537 So.2d 1025, 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (holding: "Even though it consists only of citations of authority without further explanation, a per curiam decision of the appellate court is the law of the case between the same parties on the same issues and facts, and determines all issues necessarily involved in the appeal, whether mentioned in the court's opinion or not.")

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 So. 3d 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/contreras-v-bank-of-ny-mellon-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack