Mosley v. Mosley

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mosley v. Mosley

520 So. 2d 683, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 544, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 693, 1988 WL 14588

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 1, 1988

DocketNo. 87-130

StatusPublished

This text of 520 So. 2d 683 (Mosley v. Mosley) 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

Mosley v. Mosley, 520 So. 2d 683, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 544, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 693, 1988 WL 14588 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, the former husband, appeals from a post-judgment order which awards to appellee, the former wife, the entire sum of money paid by the insurance company for the loss of contents in the former marital home. We affirm.

The record below contains neither a transcript of the trial testimony nor a statement of the evidence pursuant to Rules 9.200(a)(3) and (b)(4), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant did not avail himself of the opportunity afforded by our prior order to supplement the record under Rule 9.200(f)(2), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, contending that reversible error appears on the face of the pleadings and order below. On the contrary, we find no basis for holding that the trial court abused its discretion in the judgment sought to be reviewed. Appellant has failed to demonstrate error. Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979).

As to the alleged error of the trial court in failing to rule on the former husband’s petition for child support, that issue is not properly before us, as it remains pending in the trial court. We expressly do not rule on that issue, but in all other respects, the judgment below is AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, the former husband, appeals from a post-judgment order which awards to appellee, the former wife, the entire sum of money paid by the insurance company for the loss of contents in the former marital home. We affirm.

The record below contains neither a transcript of the trial testimony nor a statement of the evidence pursuant to Rules 9.200(a)(3) and (b)(4), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant did not avail himself of the opportunity afforded by our prior order to supplement the record under Rule 9.200(f)(2), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, contending that reversible error appears on the face of the pleadings and order below. On the contrary, we find no basis for holding that the trial court abused its discretion in the judgment sought to be reviewed. Appellant has failed to demonstrate error. Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979).

As to the alleged error of the trial court in failing to rule on the former husband’s petition for child support, that issue is not properly before us, as it remains pending in the trial court. We expressly do not rule on that issue, but in all other respects, the judgment below is AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 So. 2d 683, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 544, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 693, 1988 WL 14588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mosley-v-mosley-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack