Novom v. Novom

513 So. 2d 789, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2408
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 13, 1987
Docket86-1964
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 513 So. 2d 789 (Novom v. Novom) 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
Novom v. Novom, 513 So. 2d 789, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2408 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

513 So.2d 789 (1987)

Joseph NOVOM, Appellant,
v.
Thelma D. NOVOM, Appellee.

No. 86-1964.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

October 13, 1987.

Joseph Novom, in pro. per.

Hoffman, Larin & Feinsmith, North Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is a pro se appeal brought by the former husband Joseph Novom from a final *790 judgment of marriage dissolution. He complains that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the former wife Thelma D. Novom (1) his one-half interest in the marital home, (2) permanent alimony in the amount of $500 per month, (3) $5,700 in temporary alimony arrearages, and (4) attorney's fees and costs.

We affirm the final judgment under review because, simply stated, there is no record of the final hearing in this cause and the final judgment does not on its face reveal an abuse of discretion in these awards. The parties are in considerable disagreement as to the nature of the evidence adduced below, and were not able to reconstruct the record of the final hearing under Fla.R.App.P. 9.200(a)(3), 9.200(b)(3), after the former husband failed to include a court reporter's transcript of said hearing. Under these circumstances, we have no authority to upset any of the above-stated awards. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979); Glace & Radcliffe, Inc. v. City of Live Oak, 471 So.2d 144, 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Pape v. Pape, 444 So.2d 1058, 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Wright v. Wright, 431 So.2d 177, 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Lambert v. Lambert, 340 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

Affirmed.

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

Related

Schmidt v. Schmidt
997 So. 2d 451 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Thomas v. Perkins
723 So. 2d 293 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Chatman v. London
579 So. 2d 305 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Bowman v. Bowman
570 So. 2d 1128 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Suarez v. Perez-Borroto
528 So. 2d 440 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
513 So. 2d 789, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/novom-v-novom-fladistctapp-1987.