In re Guardianship of Coolidge

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In re Guardianship of Coolidge

368 So. 2d 426, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14217

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 7, 1979

DocketNo. 77-1816

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 368 So. 2d 426 (In re Guardianship of Coolidge) 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

In re Guardianship of Coolidge, 368 So. 2d 426, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14217 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an Interlocutory Appeal¹ from an Order of the Circuit Court of Palm Beach which denied objections to an accounting filed by the guardian of the property of Mary Harriet Coolidge. The Order refers to testimony given before the Court and a review of numerous exhibits considered by the Court. Neither the testimony nor any of the exhibits have been included in the Record on Appeal, hence we are unable to determine whether any error was committed by the lower court. It is, of course, the obligation of the appellant to provide us with a record sufficient to demonstrate the errors complained of. Failure to do so mandates affirmance. See Conner v. Coggins„ 349 So.2d 780 (Fla.lst DCA 1977); Dade County Board of Public Instruction v. Foster, 307 So.2d 502 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); and Latin American Benefit Center, Inc. v. Johstoneaux, 257 So.2d 86 (Fla.3d DCA 1972).

The Order appealed from is therefore affirmed.

DAUKSCH and LETTS, JJ., and STET-TIN, HERBERT, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an Interlocutory Appeal¹ from an Order of the Circuit Court of Palm Beach which denied objections to an accounting filed by the guardian of the property of Mary Harriet Coolidge. The Order refers to testimony given before the Court and a review of numerous exhibits considered by the Court. Neither the testimony nor any of the exhibits have been included in the Record on Appeal, hence we are unable to determine whether any error was committed by the lower court. It is, of course, the obligation of the appellant to provide us with a record sufficient to demonstrate the errors complained of. Failure to do so mandates affirmance. See Conner v. Coggins„ 349 So.2d 780 (Fla.lst DCA 1977); Dade County Board of Public Instruction v. Foster, 307 So.2d 502 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); and Latin American Benefit Center, Inc. v. Johstoneaux, 257 So.2d 86 (Fla.3d DCA 1972).

The Order appealed from is therefore affirmed.

DAUKSCH and LETTS, JJ., and STET-TIN, HERBERT, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 So. 2d 426, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-guardianship-of-coolidge-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack