Reed v. Reed

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Reed v. Reed

268 So. 3d 206

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 5, 2019·No. Case No. 5D18-1120·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (holding that, in appellate proceedings, the trial court's decision carries a presumption of correctness and, thus, the appellant has the burden to bring forth an adequate record to demonstrate error); Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (treating the challenge to adequate findings as unpreserved error unless previously brought to the trial court's attention in a motion for rehearing).

BERGER, LAMBERT, and GROSSHANS, 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, in appellate proceedings, the trial court's decision carries a presumption of correctness and, thus, the appellant has the burden to bring forth an adequate record to demonstrate error); Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (treating the challenge to adequate findings as unpreserved error unless previously brought to the trial court's attention in a motion for rehearing).

BERGER, LAMBERT, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.

Reed v. Reed, 268 So. 3d 206 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

268 So. 3d 206 (Reed v. Reed) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related