Malvin Garnett v. Priscille Duvalsaint

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: September 30, 2024
• Docket: 3D2023-1501
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 30, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1501 Lower Tribunal No. 19-13774 ________________

Malvin Garnett, Appellant,

vs.

Priscille Duvalsaint, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marlene Fernandez-Karavetsos, Judge.

Malvin Garnett, in proper person.

No appearance, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

LOBREE, J.

Malvin Garnett (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to vacate the recommended order of a general magistrate ordering

that he pay retroactive child support and ongoing child support of $366.64

per month to Priscille Duvalsaint (“Mother”). The Father, proceeding pro se

below and on appeal, challenges the trial court’s referral of all issues of child

support to the general magistrate, the magistrate’s calculations of the parties’

net incomes, and imputation of income to him. Because we cannot conclude

on this record that the trial court abused its discretion, we affirm.

“A trial court’s award of child support is reviewed for abuse of

discretion.” Sadeh v. Calenzani, 389 So .3d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (citing

Apesteguy v. Keglevich, 319 So. 3d 150, 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)).

Additionally, the standard of review we apply to “appropriately review a trial

court’s order imputing income to a spouse is whether competent, substantial

evidence supports the findings.” Freilich v. Freilich, 897 So. 2d 537, 543

(Fla. 5th DCA 2005). “[A] [general magistrate]’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law come to the trial court clothed with a presumption of

correctness, and the trial court may only reject these findings and

conclusions if they are clearly erroneous or if the [general magistrate] has

misconceived the legal effect of the evidence presented.” Bank of New York

Mellon v. Bontoux, 347 So. 3d 105, 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (quoting Khata

v. Belova, 274 So. 3d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)).

2 The trial court denied the Father’s motion, finding he merely sought to

relitigate the issues and evidence presented to the general magistrate and

that the general magistrate’s order was supported by competent, substantial

evidence. Unfortunately, we are unable to properly review the factual or legal

basis for the trial court’s decision because the Father has not furnished this

court with an adequate record. The Father has only given this court excerpts

of the hearing before the general magistrate and there is no transcript at all

from the hearing on the Father’s motion to vacate. “When there are issues

of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions

about the evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate

court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude

that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an

alternative theory.” Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d

1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979).

Accordingly, we are constrained to affirm the trial court’s order because

the record brought forward by the Father is inadequate to demonstrate

reversible error. See Estes v. Sassano, 47 So. 3d 383, 385 (Fla. 1st DCA

2010) (“Without an adequate record of the proceedings below, this court

cannot reasonably conclude that the trial court so misconceived the law as

to require reversal.”); Taylor v. Bateman, 927 So. 2d 1024, 1026 (Fla. 4th

3 DCA 2006) (“The piecemeal transcripts deprived this court of the ability to

review the record as a whole. Such record omissions are fatal to an appeal.”);

Fay v. Craig, 99 So. 3d 981, 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (“To a large extent

appellants proceed at their peril when they furnish a partial transcript.”).

Affirmed.