Hoffman ex rel. Hoffman v. Hoffman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hoffman ex rel. Hoffman v. Hoffman

920 So. 2d 131, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 830, 2006 WL 181390

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 2006

DocketNo. 1D05-500

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 920 So. 2d 131 (Hoffman ex rel. Hoffman v. Hoffman) 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

Hoffman ex rel. Hoffman v. Hoffman, 920 So. 2d 131, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 830, 2006 WL 181390 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case, appellant challenges a trustee’s fee awarded to appellee Kenneth Hoffman. Because appellant can produce no record of the proceedings below, we are precluded from considering the question of whether the lower court’s judgment is supported by sufficient evidence or whether appellant has preserved any appropriate challenges to the lower court’s judgment. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979)(“In appellate proceedings the decision of the trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.”); see also Lafaille v. Lafaille, 837 So.2d 601, 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)(“The trial court’s findings and final judgment come to us clothed with a presumption of correctness and cannot be disturbed absent a record demonstrating reversible error”). Accordingly, the order is AFFIRMED.

KAHN, C.J., HAWKES, and THOMAS, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case, appellant challenges a trustee’s fee awarded to appellee Kenneth Hoffman. Because appellant can produce no record of the proceedings below, we are precluded from considering the question of whether the lower court’s judgment is supported by sufficient evidence or whether appellant has preserved any appropriate challenges to the lower court’s judgment. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979)(“In appellate proceedings the decision of the trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.”); see also Lafaille v. Lafaille, 837 So.2d 601, 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)(“The trial court’s findings and final judgment come to us clothed with a presumption of correctness and cannot be disturbed absent a record demonstrating reversible error”). Accordingly, the order is AFFIRMED.

KAHN, C.J., HAWKES, and THOMAS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

920 So. 2d 131, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 830, 2006 WL 181390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-ex-rel-hoffman-v-hoffman-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack