Sullivan v. Sullivan

791 So. 2d 1119, 2000 WL 1781353
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 6, 2000·No. No. 4D00-262·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm under the principles of Apple-gate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979) because the record does not contain the transcript of the trial court’s proceedings. Although we are cognizant of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(f)(2), the appellee in his answer brief specifically pointed out that the transcript was not contained in the record. “Where, as here, the appellees point out the deficiency in the record in their brief and appellants do not move to supplement the record, this court takes the position that compliance with rule 9.200(f)(2) has been waived.” Cirillo v. Davis, 732 So.2d 387, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

GUNTHER, POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

Sullivan v. Sullivan, 791 So. 2d 1119, 2000 WL 1781353 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

791 So. 2d 1119 (Sullivan v. Sullivan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

PT Capital Invs., LLC v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n
262 So. 3d 269 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)