D'Angelo v. D'Angelo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

D'Angelo v. D'Angelo

655 So. 2d 1262, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5792, 1995 WL 322636

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 31, 1995

DocketNo. 93-2218

StatusPublished

This text of 655 So. 2d 1262 (D'Angelo v. D'Angelo) 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

D'Angelo v. D'Angelo, 655 So. 2d 1262, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5792, 1995 WL 322636 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm. Appellant claims, among other things, that he is entitled to a new trial due to the theft of the court reporter’s notes of a final dissolution hearing. Appellant misplaces his reliance on Van Scoyoc v. York, 173 So.2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert, denied, 179 So.2d 214 (Fla.1965), where the loss of a portion of a court reporter’s notes required a new trial because the case presented evidence of a complex and technical nature which was impossible to reconstruct for appellate purposes. In contrast, appellant made no effort to prepare a statement of the evidence or trial proceedings as provided in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4), and we find his excuse for not exercising this available remedy unpersuasive.

The extensive findings of fact contained in the final judgment and the partial record furnished on appeal show that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its equitable distribution of the marital assets or in its determination that appellant should pay one-half of appellee’s attorney’s fees. We also hold that appellant has failed to demonstrate error in the remaining points raised in this appeal. Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed in all respects.

AFFIRMED.

DELL, C.J., and WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm. Appellant claims, among other things, that he is entitled to a new trial due to the theft of the court reporter’s notes of a final dissolution hearing. Appellant misplaces his reliance on Van Scoyoc v. York, 173 So.2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert, denied, 179 So.2d 214 (Fla.1965), where the loss of a portion of a court reporter’s notes required a new trial because the case presented evidence of a complex and technical nature which was impossible to reconstruct for appellate purposes. In contrast, appellant made no effort to prepare a statement of the evidence or trial proceedings as provided in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4), and we find his excuse for not exercising this available remedy unpersuasive.

The extensive findings of fact contained in the final judgment and the partial record furnished on appeal show that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its equitable distribution of the marital assets or in its determination that appellant should pay one-half of appellee’s attorney’s fees. We also hold that appellant has failed to demonstrate error in the remaining points raised in this appeal. Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed in all respects.

AFFIRMED.

DELL, C.J., and WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

655 So. 2d 1262, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5792, 1995 WL 322636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dangelo-v-dangelo-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack