Okun v. Stuart House Condominium Ass'n

362 So. 2d 713, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16618
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 26, 1978·No. No. 77-1484·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. The record on appeal in the instant case does not contain a transcript of either the trial below or the evidentiary hearing on attorneys’ fees. Because the final judgment in foreclosure appealed relates directly to these matters, we do not have before us an adequate record upon which to review the actions of the trial court. Accordingly, we must assume that the judgment appealed is correct; therefore, we affirm. See, e. g., Williamson v. Williamson, 335 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Strickland v. Lewis, 328 So.2d 244 (Fla.1st DCA 1976); Dade County Board of Public Instruction v. Foster, 307 So.2d 502 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Butler v. Metropolitan Dade County, 298 So.2d 552 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).

Affirmed.

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

Okun v. Stuart House Condominium Ass'n, 362 So. 2d 713, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16618 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

362 So. 2d 713 (Okun v. Stuart House Condominium Ass'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Garcia v. Alexis Nihon Properties Corp.
597 So. 2d 973 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Valdes v. Nateman
539 So. 2d 36 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Holland International, Inc. v. Pollack
471 So. 2d 129 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee
377 So. 2d 1150 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)