Pettus v. Dingwall

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pettus v. Dingwall

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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 7, 1981

DocketNo. 81-99

StatusPublished

This text of 404 So. 2d 414 (Pettus v. Dingwall) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

404 So. 2d 414, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pettus-v-dingwall-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack