McGlamry v. Voytek

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McGlamry v. Voytek

659 So. 2d 1184, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8670, 1995 WL 481017

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 16, 1995

DocketNo. 95-0008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 659 So. 2d 1184 (McGlamry v. Voytek) 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

McGlamry v. Voytek, 659 So. 2d 1184, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8670, 1995 WL 481017 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979). The appellant claims that he did not receive proper notice of a hearing on his motion to hold appellee in contempt for failure to provide him the agreed visitation with his daughter. At a hearing set by appellee to strike the case from a trial calendar, the trial court ruled on the earlier filed motion for contempt. We are advised by appellant himself that he testified as to the matter of visitation and thus the issues were addressed at the hearing. It is appellant’s duty to provide this court with a record which demonstrates the error complained of. Without a record we cannot determine whether the appellant objected at the hearing to the court’s determination of the matter of visitation. By failing to object or by proceeding with the substance of the motion, appellant [1185]*1185would have waived any objections to lack of notice. Without a proper record we also cannot determine whether the court erred in the substance of the order entered.

Finally, we note that appellee has conceded in her answer brief that the trial court does have continuing jurisdiction over this matter.

DELL, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979). The appellant claims that he did not receive proper notice of a hearing on his motion to hold appellee in contempt for failure to provide him the agreed visitation with his daughter. At a hearing set by appellee to strike the case from a trial calendar, the trial court ruled on the earlier filed motion for contempt. We are advised by appellant himself that he testified as to the matter of visitation and thus the issues were addressed at the hearing. It is appellant’s duty to provide this court with a record which demonstrates the error complained of. Without a record we cannot determine whether the appellant objected at the hearing to the court’s determination of the matter of visitation. By failing to object or by proceeding with the substance of the motion, appellant [1185]*1185would have waived any objections to lack of notice. Without a proper record we also cannot determine whether the court erred in the substance of the order entered.

Finally, we note that appellee has conceded in her answer brief that the trial court does have continuing jurisdiction over this matter.

DELL, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

659 So. 2d 1184, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8670, 1995 WL 481017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcglamry-v-voytek-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack