Henderson v. Mickelson
This text of 661 So. 2d 101 (Henderson v. Mickelson) 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.
Opinion
AFFIRMED. The findings and decision of the trial court are presumed correct, and Henderson, as the appellant, had the burden of demonstrating error. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979). Although there is no record of the trial proceeding, Henderson could have availed himself of rule 9.200(b)(4), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, by submitting a statement of the evidence. Based on the record before us, we have no alternative but to affirm the judgment below. Wright v. Wright, 431 So.2d 177, 178 (Fla. 5th DCA [102]*1021983). See also Carter v. Carter, 504 So.2d 418, 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
661 So. 2d 101, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9538, 1995 WL 525675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-mickelson-fladistctapp-1995.