Pettus v. Dingwall

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pettus v. Dingwall

404 So. 2d 414, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21253

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 7, 1981·No. No. 81-99·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order on petition and coimterpetition for modification of child support. We affirm primarily due to the state of the record.

The issues before the trial court related to the needs and abilities of both parties regarding child support. Although extensive testimony was taken, a court reporter was not present for the crucial hearing. In addition, the parties failed to prepare a statement under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(3), choosing, instead, to enter into a stipulation whereby this court should consider the entire trial court file, including unfiled correspondence and mem-oranda, as the record on appeal. The stipulation provides that the facts in these documents should be considered as a “statement of facts” except where conflicting, in which case the findings in the judgment are to be considered as the facts.

On the basis of this record, we are unable to conclude that the trial court committed reversible error and we, therefore affirm. See Kauffmann v. Baker, 392 So.2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Baker v. Baker, 366 So.2d 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).

AFFIRMED.

BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Retired, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order on petition and coimterpetition for modification of child support. We affirm primarily due to the state of the record.

The issues before the trial court related to the needs and abilities of both parties regarding child support. Although extensive testimony was taken, a court reporter was not present for the crucial hearing. In addition, the parties failed to prepare a statement under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(3), choosing, instead, to enter into a stipulation whereby this court should consider the entire trial court file, including unfiled correspondence and mem-oranda, as the record on appeal. The stipulation provides that the facts in these documents should be considered as a “statement of facts” except where conflicting, in which case the findings in the judgment are to be considered as the facts.

On the basis of this record, we are unable to conclude that the trial court committed reversible error and we, therefore affirm. See Kauffmann v. Baker, 392 So.2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Baker v. Baker, 366 So.2d 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).

AFFIRMED.

BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Retired, Associate Judge, concur.

Pettus v. Dingwall, 404 So. 2d 414, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21253 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

404 So. 2d 414 (Pettus v. Dingwall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related