From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee

Supreme Court of Florida
Jan 22, 1980
377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1980)

Summary

holding that "[w]ithout 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," and "[w]ithout knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal"

Summary of this case from Galman v. Signature Home Theaters

Opinion

No. 55345.

October 4, 1979. Rehearing Denied January 22, 1980.

Petition for review from the District Court of Appeal.

Marion D. Lamb, Jr., and Guyte McCord III of Spector Tunnicliff, Tallahassee, for petitioners.

Julius F. Parker, Jr. of Madigan, Parker, Gatlin, Swedmark Skelding, Tallahassee, for respondent.


By petition for writ of certiorari we have for review the decision of the district court of appeal in Barnett Bank of Tallahassee v. Applegate, Case No. HH-210 (Fla. 1st DCA October 17, 1978), which directly conflicts with Okun v. Stuart House Condominium Association, Inc., 362 So.2d 713 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Moore v. Sky Realty, Inc., 339 So.2d 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, 336 So.2d 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Buckalew v. Buckalew, 115 So.2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); and Bolick v. Sperry, 88 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1956). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

On January 26, 1974, Albert V. and Phyllis J. Applegate entered into an agreement with Lewis C. Schacht. Among other things, the agreement provided for the installment sale of 550 head of cattle to Schacht. The Applegates filed suit against Schacht on February 20, 1976. The Barnett Bank of Tallahassee was joined as a defendant due to its December 28, 1975, security agreement with Schacht and related UCC financing statement. In late April, 1976, after the filing of the suit, Schacht sold at least 140 of the cattle and paid Barnett Bank the sale proceeds of $16,233.36 and $6,496.75.

After a nonjury trial without a reporter, the circuit court found that the Applegates' lien on the cattle was superior to Barnett Bank's lien. The court also found and ordered the proceeds of the April sales of the cattle to be held in trust for the Applegates to the extent of any deficiency on the sum still due them. Barnett Bank appealed but did not bring forward any substitute for a trial transcript. See Fla.R.App.P. 3.6(h) and 9.200(b)(3).

The First District Court of Appeal ruled that the Applegates had lost any priority to the proceeds of the sale of the cattle because their financing statement did not cover proceeds from a sale of collateral and they failed to perfect their security interest within ten days after the sales as required by Section 679.306(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1977). The district court of appeal concluded that "the [trial] court's finding that a constructive trust arose by operation of law is not supported by the facts." The appellate court reversed the imposition of a constructive trust. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee v. Applegate at 7, 8.

In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error. The Applegates correctly point to the lack of a trial transcript or a proper substitute as fatally flawing the appellate court's ruling. The written final judgment by the trial court could well be wrong in its reasoning, but the decision of the trial court is primarily what matters, not the reasoning used.

Even when based on erroneous reasoning, a conclusion or decision of a trial court will generally be affirmed if the evidence or an alternative theory supports it. E.g., 3 Fla.Jur.2d § 296; In Re Yohn's Estate, 238 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1970); Goodman v. Goodman, 204 So.2d 21 (4th DCA Fla. 1967); Escarra v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 131 So.2d 483 (Fla. 1961). However, a misconception by the trial judge of a controlling principle of law can constitute grounds for reversal. E.g., Aronson v. Siquier, 318 So.2d 452 (3d DCA Fla. 1975); Green v. Putnam, 93 So.2d 378 (Fla. 1957); Knight v. City of Miami, 127 Fla. 585, 173 So. 801 (1937).

The trial court's imposition of a constructive trust could well be supported by evidence adduced at trial but not stated in the judge's order or otherwise apparent in the incomplete record on appeal. The question raised by Barnett Bank clearly involves underlying issues of fact. When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. Without 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. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal. The trial court should have been affirmed because the record brought forward by the appellant is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error. E.g., South Florida Apartment Association, Inc. v. Dansyear, 347 So.2d 710 (3d DCA Fla. 1977); Strickland v. Lewis, 328 So.2d 244 (1st DCA Fla. 1976); Troutman v. Couture, 98 Fla. 889, 124 So. 443 (1929). See also cases cited above for conflict.

The order of the district court of appeal is quashed and the cause remanded for entry of an order affirming the final judgment of the trial court.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., and VANN, Associate Justice, concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.


While I concur in the resolution of the legal issue in this case, I would remand to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. I would not direct the entry of an order affirming the trial court.


Summaries of

Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee

Supreme Court of Florida
Jan 22, 1980
377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1980)

holding that "[w]ithout 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," and "[w]ithout knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal"

Summary of this case from Galman v. Signature Home Theaters

holding that "[w]ithout 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," and "[w]ithout knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal"

Summary of this case from First Sw. Fin. Servs. v. Morali

holding that "[w]ithout 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," and "[w]ithout knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal"

Summary of this case from Weisman v. Nunez

holding lower court's decisions are presumed correct on appeal and Appellant bears burden of proving decision was incorrect

Summary of this case from Washington v. State

holding that, given the presumption of correctness of the trial court's ruling, where no transcript is provided to appellate court, then the appellate court is unable to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion

Summary of this case from Lanson v. Reid

holding that, given the presumption of correctness of the trial court's ruling, where no transcript is provided to appellate court, then the appellate court is unable to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion

Summary of this case from Marshall v. Nationstar Mortg.

holding lack of transcript to be fatal flaw where appellate court could not conclude that trial court erred without knowing factual context

Summary of this case from Biss v. Biss

holding that the appellate court should affirm the trial court's judgment where "the record brought forward by the appellant is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error"

Summary of this case from E. Coast Capital Inv., LLC v. Naima Grp., LLC

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

Summary of this case from Reed v. Reed

holding that, in the absence of an adequate record of the proceedings below, an appellate court must affirm the trial court's judgment

Summary of this case from Benites v. Barrera

holding that presumption of correctness attaches to trial court's decision and that without adequate record, appellate court cannot conclude that judgment is not supported by evidence or alternative theory

Summary of this case from Bass v. Bass

holding that lack of a transcript is fatal to arguments on appeal which are based on the evidence at trial

Summary of this case from Robbins v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr.

holding that, given the presumption of correctness of the trial court's ruling, where no transcript is provided to appellate court, then appellate court is unable to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion

Summary of this case from Klinka v. Estate of Brown

holding that, given the presumption of correctness of the trial court's ruling, where no transcript is provided to appellate court, then appellate court is unable to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion

Summary of this case from Klinka v. Estate of Brown

holding that, given the presumption of correctness of the trial court's ruling, where no transcript is provided to appellate court, then appellate court is unable to determine whether the evidence supports the trial court's judgment

Summary of this case from Shaarbay v. Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Alvarez

holding that the trial court's ruling is presumed correct, and where no transcript is provided, the appellate court generally cannot determine whether the evidence supports the trial court's rulings

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. Lorenzo

holding that "[w]ithout 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."

Summary of this case from Vandesande v. Miami-Dade Cnty.

holding that without record of trial proceedings, court cannot review underlying evidence so as to conclude that trial court's judgment is not supported by evidence or by alternative theory

Summary of this case from Porubsky v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n

holding that without transcript of trial proceedings, appellate court cannot review underlying evidence so as to conclude that trial court's judgment is not supported by evidence

Summary of this case from Thompson v. Goodwin

holding that "[w]ithout 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. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal"

Summary of this case from Gonzalez-Barrera v. Majorca Towers Condo., Inc.

holding that “[w]ithout 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. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal”

Summary of this case from Gonzalez-Barrera v. Majorca Towers Condo., Inc.

holding that where there are factual issues that require a review of the record and the record provided is inadequate, no reversible error is demonstrated

Summary of this case from Sanchez v. State

holding that without transcript of trial court proceedings, appellate court cannot review sufficiency of evidence

Summary of this case from Soares v. Blesedell

holding that in appellate proceedings, trial court's decision carries presumption of correctness and appellant has burden to bring forth adequate record to demonstrate error

Summary of this case from Osbourne v. Durrant

holding that without record of trial proceedings, court cannot review underlying evidence so as to conclude that trial court's judgment is not supported by evidence or by alternative theory

Summary of this case from Moran v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n
Case details for

Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee

Case Details

Full title:ALBERT V. APPLEGATE ET UX., PETITIONERS, v. THE BARNETT BANK OF…

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Jan 22, 1980

Citations

377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1980)

Citing Cases

Thurman v. Davis

We cannot emphasize too strongly the fundamental principle of appellate review that "a trial court's findings…

Smith v. Reverse Mortg. Sols., Inc.

B. Standard of Review We first note that, consistent with the dictates of Applegate v. Barnett Bank of…