Jolly v. Jolly

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jolly v. Jolly

572 So. 2d 566, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 161, 1991 WL 2347

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 10, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1027

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 572 So. 2d 566 (Jolly v. Jolly) 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

Jolly v. Jolly, 572 So. 2d 566, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 161, 1991 WL 2347 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

SHIVERS, Chief Judge.

Appellant, Tommy Otis Jolly, appeals the denial of his motion for modification of final judgment of dissolution, arguing that the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion established a material change in circumstances, such that the best interests of the parties’ minor child would be served by a change in custody from appellee/wife to appellant/husband. Because the hearing was not recorded, appellant provided this court with a prepared Statement of the Evidence, purporting to recreate the testimony presented at the hearing. Although the statement appears to have been properly approved and settled by the trial court pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.200(b)(4), the statement fails to support appellant’s argument that the trial court committed reversible error in denying the motion for modification. Accordingly, the order is affirmed. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979); Starks v. Starks, 423 So.2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

AFFIRMED.

JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

SHIVERS, Chief Judge.

Appellant, Tommy Otis Jolly, appeals the denial of his motion for modification of final judgment of dissolution, arguing that the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion established a material change in circumstances, such that the best interests of the parties’ minor child would be served by a change in custody from appellee/wife to appellant/husband. Because the hearing was not recorded, appellant provided this court with a prepared Statement of the Evidence, purporting to recreate the testimony presented at the hearing. Although the statement appears to have been properly approved and settled by the trial court pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.200(b)(4), the statement fails to support appellant’s argument that the trial court committed reversible error in denying the motion for modification. Accordingly, the order is affirmed. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979); Starks v. Starks, 423 So.2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

AFFIRMED.

JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 So. 2d 566, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 161, 1991 WL 2347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jolly-v-jolly-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack