Dieguez v. Craig E. Weissberg, P.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dieguez v. Craig E. Weissberg, P.A.

3 So. 3d 441, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1959, 2009 WL 529564

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 4, 2009

DocketNo. 3D08-304

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 So. 3d 441 (Dieguez v. Craig E. Weissberg, P.A.) 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

Dieguez v. Craig E. Weissberg, P.A., 3 So. 3d 441, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1959, 2009 WL 529564 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jesse Dieguez (“the client”) appeals from a trial court order granting his former attorney’s “Motion to Adjudicate and Foreclose Charging Lien and for Entry of Final Judgment for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.” We affirm.

In this appeal, the client sets forth a number of challenges to the factual findings entered by the trial court. However, because no transcript of the proceedings below appears in the record, and the client has not opted to provide a substitute pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(a)(4), or 9.200(b)(4), the client is unable to provide any evidentiary support for his arguments. Conversely, the trial court’s findings are bolstered by two written retainer agreements, signed by the client, which do appear in the record.

In the absence of a proper record, a presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court’s decision and this Court’s review is limited to whether errors appear on the face of the judgment. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); Porteous v. Porteous, 937 So.2d 1179, 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Prymus v. Prymus, 753 So.2d 742, 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Here, the client has failed to overcome the presumption of correctness attached to the trial court’s decision, and no errors appear on the face of the trial court’s decision. Accordingly, the order on appeal is affirmed in all respects.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jesse Dieguez (“the client”) appeals from a trial court order granting his former attorney’s “Motion to Adjudicate and Foreclose Charging Lien and for Entry of Final Judgment for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.” We affirm.

In this appeal, the client sets forth a number of challenges to the factual findings entered by the trial court. However, because no transcript of the proceedings below appears in the record, and the client has not opted to provide a substitute pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(a)(4), or 9.200(b)(4), the client is unable to provide any evidentiary support for his arguments. Conversely, the trial court’s findings are bolstered by two written retainer agreements, signed by the client, which do appear in the record.

In the absence of a proper record, a presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court’s decision and this Court’s review is limited to whether errors appear on the face of the judgment. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); Porteous v. Porteous, 937 So.2d 1179, 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Prymus v. Prymus, 753 So.2d 742, 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Here, the client has failed to overcome the presumption of correctness attached to the trial court’s decision, and no errors appear on the face of the trial court’s decision. Accordingly, the order on appeal is affirmed in all respects.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 So. 3d 441, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1959, 2009 WL 529564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dieguez-v-craig-e-weissberg-pa-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack