Hart v. Streitz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hart v. Streitz

219 So. 3d 1014, 2017 WL 2562364, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8735

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 14, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D16-0715

StatusPublished

This text of 219 So. 3d 1014 (Hart v. Streitz) 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

Hart v. Streitz, 219 So. 3d 1014, 2017 WL 2562364, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8735 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

• Joni Beckett Hart (“the Mother”) filed a motion for modification of timesharing and parental responsibility. The trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, reasoning that there had not been a substantial change in circumstances. Seeking to challenge the trial court’s order, the Mother filed a statement of the evidence with the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). The trial court disapproved the Mother’s statement of the evidence because of its many factual inaccuracies and omissions. The Mother did not seek approval of a second statement of the evidence. Instead, she filed the instant appeal.

A statement of evidence or proceedings prepared by a party in lieu of a transcript must be approved by the court. Fla. R. App. P. 9.200(b)(4). The proceedings below were not transcribed, and we do not have before us an approved statement of the evidence on which to rely. As such, we are without an adequate record to judge the merits of the Mother’s claims. Moreover, the Mother has not developed any argument that might require a reversal on the face of the order without any further record. Accordingly, we are constrained to affirm. See Kirchinger v. Kirehinger, 546 So.2d 86, 86-87 (Fla. 2d DCA1989).

AFFIRMED.

KELSEY, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

• Joni Beckett Hart (“the Mother”) filed a motion for modification of timesharing and parental responsibility. The trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, reasoning that there had not been a substantial change in circumstances. Seeking to challenge the trial court’s order, the Mother filed a statement of the evidence with the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). The trial court disapproved the Mother’s statement of the evidence because of its many factual inaccuracies and omissions. The Mother did not seek approval of a second statement of the evidence. Instead, she filed the instant appeal.

A statement of evidence or proceedings prepared by a party in lieu of a transcript must be approved by the court. Fla. R. App. P. 9.200(b)(4). The proceedings below were not transcribed, and we do not have before us an approved statement of the evidence on which to rely. As such, we are without an adequate record to judge the merits of the Mother’s claims. Moreover, the Mother has not developed any argument that might require a reversal on the face of the order without any further record. Accordingly, we are constrained to affirm. See Kirchinger v. Kirehinger, 546 So.2d 86, 86-87 (Fla. 2d DCA1989).

AFFIRMED.

KELSEY, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 So. 3d 1014, 2017 WL 2562364, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-streitz-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack