Paul v. Charles

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Paul v. Charles

816 So. 2d 837, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 7235, 2002 WL 1040273

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 24, 2002·No. No. 5D01-2249·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) (holding that “[i]n appellate proceedings the decision of the trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.”); Prymus v. Prymus, 753 So.2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (stating that without a transcript or proper substitute of the final hearing below “the presumption of correctness which attaches to this final judgment remains intact and we can find no abuse of discretion in this regard.”).

THOMPSON, C.J., SAWAYA and PLEUS, 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, 1152 (Fla.1979) (holding that “[i]n appellate proceedings the decision of the trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.”); Prymus v. Prymus, 753 So.2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (stating that without a transcript or proper substitute of the final hearing below “the presumption of correctness which attaches to this final judgment remains intact and we can find no abuse of discretion in this regard.”).

THOMPSON, C.J., SAWAYA and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

Paul v. Charles, 816 So. 2d 837, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 7235, 2002 WL 1040273 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

816 So. 2d 837 (Paul v. Charles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related