Vandesande v. Miami-Dade County

211 So. 3d 1086, 2017 WL 621235, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1998
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 15, 2017·No. No. 3D15-2038·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on Count I of Appellant Steven Vandesande’s Third Amended Complaint. Peeples v. Peeples, 871 So.2d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (barring former husband’s supplemental petition on the basis of res judicata).

We also affirm the trial court’s directed verdict on the remaining counts of Vande-sande’s Third Amended Complaint. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (holding that “[wjithout a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”).

Affirmed.

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

Vandesande v. Miami-Dade County, 211 So. 3d 1086, 2017 WL 621235, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1998 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

211 So. 3d 1086 (Vandesande v. Miami-Dade County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee
377 So. 2d 1150 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)
Peeples v. Peeples
871 So. 2d 945 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)