¶1AFFIRMED. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) (holding that “[i]n appellate proceedings the decision of the trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.”); Prymus v. Prymus, 753 So.2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (stating that without a transcript or proper substitute of the final hearing below “the presumption of correctness which attaches to this final judgment remains intact and we can find no abuse of discretion in this regard.”).
816 So. 2d 837
Paul v. Charles
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided May 24, 2002
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2002-05-24
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 2004
1 state decisions
Relies on 377 So. 2d 1150 - Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee · 753 So. 2d 742 - Prymus v. Prymus
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2002-05-24
View the full empirical analysis of this case →