Gleim v. Gleim

176 So. 2d 610
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 29, 1965
Docket64-1061
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 176 So. 2d 610 (Gleim v. Gleim) 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
Gleim v. Gleim, 176 So. 2d 610 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Opinion

176 So.2d 610 (1965)

Lawrence H. GLEIM, Appellant,
v.
Harold J. GLEIM, Appellee.

No. 64-1061.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

June 29, 1965.
Rehearing Denied July 23, 1965.

Knuck & Anderson, Hialeah, for appellant.

Phillips & Phillips, Miami, for appellee.

Before CARROLL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

*611 SWANN, Judge.

The appellant, defendant below, seeks review of a final judgment in replevin, after a trial without jury, in favor of the plaintiff, his brother. The parties are designated as in the trial court.

The plaintiff purchased an International Tractor and title was taken in his name, although possession came to be in the defendant. The defendant subsequently traded the International Tractor for a Kenworth Tractor and the title to the new vehicle also remained in the name of the plaintiff, with possession in the defendant. The plaintiff's demand for the vehicle was refused and an action in replevin was filed. The defendant answered and claimed ownership under a resulting trust.

On final hearing the trial court held for plaintiff. The defendant has appealed therefrom, claiming in essence that the evidence established a resulting trust and that the trial court erred when it failed to find that such a trust existed.

The defendant has failed to provide this court with a transcript of the testimony and we are unable to review and determine the sufficiency of the evidence. It is the responsibility and duty of the appellant to provide the appellate court with a record sufficient to review the matter assigned as error. Belfield v. Lochner, Fla.App. 1964, 162 So.2d 668; Cleeland v. Miami Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., Fla.App. 1964, 159 So.2d 260; Best v. Barnette, Fla.App. 1961, 130 So.2d 90; Robinson v. Foland, Fla.App. 1960, 124 So.2d 512. Failure to do so herein requires us to affirm the decision of the trial court.

It is therefore

Affirmed.

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

Related

Yitzchok Yoel Kasowitz v. Alison Ruth Kasowitz
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
Hernandez v. Dept. of Revenue
230 So. 3d 514 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Echeverry v. Christiana Trust
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017
Miami Automotive Retail, Inc. v. Leoz
983 So. 2d 1242 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Shojaie v. GCPC
974 So. 2d 1140 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Nemeth v. De Lauega
354 So. 2d 418 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
SOUTH FLA. APT. ASSOC., INC. v. Dansyear
347 So. 2d 710 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Jackson v. Jackson
343 So. 2d 1294 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Kasha v. Kasha
339 So. 2d 717 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Koblinski v. Koblinski
339 So. 2d 266 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Dimun Investment, Inc. v. Citizens Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Hialeah
249 So. 2d 63 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Reicheck v. Florida Bond & Mortgage Co.
237 So. 2d 83 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Cipolato v. Cooper
230 So. 2d 687 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Conlee Construction Co. v. Cay Construction Co.
221 So. 2d 792 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
Richardson v. Fast
208 So. 2d 832 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Johnson v. Town of Eatonville
203 So. 2d 664 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Davis ex rel. Davis v. Zona
198 So. 2d 43 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Seraydar v. Seraydar
178 So. 2d 32 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
176 So. 2d 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gleim-v-gleim-fladistctapp-1965.