Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
48 citation events (31 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Tiffany Staesche v. Estate of Elliott Joe Housley (fladistctapp, 2025-10-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tiffany Staesche v. Estate of Elliott Joe Housley
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael S. Melton v. Sandra M. Melton
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Ferguson v. Ferguson, 54 So. 3d 553, 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citing Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Echcho Maria Hart v. Dade County Federal Credit Union
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Indeed, an 2 appellant’s failure to provide a proper record to the reviewing court “is ‘usually fatal’ to the appellant's claims.” Id. at 1264-65 (quoting Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Damaris Hedges v. Maureen Hamilton
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Consequently, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for the Suggestion of Capacity to be judged under the correct standard of proof. 1 See A.A. v. D.W., 326 So. 3d 1186 , 1187–88 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (reversing final judgment and remanding for correction of error despite lack of transcript because error in final judgment was apparent on its face); Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (reversing final judgment where error was apparent on face of judgment and remanding with instructions for the trial court to correct error).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) A. A. v. D. W.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
As a threshold issue, we note that the Mother has not provided a transcript of the final hearing. "[T]he failure to provide either a transcript or proper substitute for one, such as a reconciliation of the facts by the parties and trial court judge, is usually fatal." Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) BRADLEY ENGLE v. MICHELLE K. ENGLE
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
See, e.g., B.K. v. S.D.C., 122 So. 3d 980, 981 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("S.D.C. argues that B.K. failed to -7- preserve this error [of a miscalculation in determining a child support arrearage] for appellate review by electing not to file a motion for rehearing. . . . [W]e previously declined to extend this . . . reasoning to claims of mathematical error appearing on the face of a final judgment." (citing Smith v. Smith, 39 So. 3d 458, 459-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010))); Ferguson v. Ferguson, 54 So. 3d 553, 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (reversing trial court order that voided a provision of the marital settleme…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) R. M. A. v. J. A. S.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Cf. Frezza v. Frezza, 216 So. 3d 758, 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (noting that specific findings to support an attorney's fee award in a dissolution proceeding "may be made in the written final judgment or at the hearing" and concluding that "[i]n the absence of a hearing transcript, we cannot say that the trial court erred"); Esaw, 965 So. 2d at 1264–65 ("The appellant has the burden of providing a proper record to the reviewing court, and the failure to do so is 'usually fatal' to the appellant's claims." (quoting Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990))).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frezza v. Frezza
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
“The appellant has the burden of providing a proper record to the reviewing court, and the failure to do so is ’usually fatal’ to the appellant’s claims.” Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So.2d 1261, 1264-65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (quoting Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Duke v. Duke (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Id.; Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Duke v. Duke
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Id.; Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matteis v. Matteis
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); see also Ferguson v. Ferguson, 54 So.3d 553, 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Larocka v. Larocka
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Silverman v. Silverman, 940 So.2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“‘[T]he absence of a transcript does not preclude reversal where an error of law is apparent on the face of the judgment.’ ” (quoting Chirino v. Chirino, 710 So.2d 696, 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998))); Fugina v. Fugina, 874 So.2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“Because there is no transcript of the hearing in this contempt proceeding, our review is limited to errors of law that are apparent on the face of the record.” (citing Fortune v. Pantin, 851 So.2d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hindle v. FUITH
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Esaw v. Esaw
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alois v. Alois
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
In Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), we stated: . . . this is not to say that an award amounting to any particular percentage of a party's income forms a bright-line rule resulting in a finding of an excessive award and an abuse of discretion.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Encarnacion v. Encarnacion
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
See Fortune v. Pantin, 851 So.2d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fugina v. Fugina
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
See Fortune v. Pantin, 851 So.2d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fortune v. Pantin
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Chereskin v. Chereskin
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Klette v. Klette
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
NOTES [*] The Fourth District Court of Appeal has observed, " Applegate is not controlling [where] we find reversible error on the face of the amended judgment alone." Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kilgore v. Kilgore (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
See Fenner v. Fenner, 599 So.2d 1343, 1345 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 613 So.2d 3 (Fla.1992); Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wiederhold v. Wiederhold
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
See Kovar, 648 So.2d at 179 ; Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kovar v. Kovar
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hirsch v. Hirsch (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fenner v. Fenner
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
This court stated in Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990): The decision of the trial court comes to an appellate court clothed in a presumption of correctness and the burden is on appellant to demonstrate reversible error.
discussed Cited "see" IRICK, III v. JONES
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261 , 1264–65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("The appellant has the burden of providing a proper record to the reviewing court, and the failure to do so is 'usually fatal' to the appellant's claims." (quoting Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990))); see also Fla. R.
discussed Cited "see" Andre v. Abreu
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ferguson v. Ferguson, 54 So. 3d 553, 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citing Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (finding reversible error on the face of the amended judgment alone).
cited Cited "see" Ferguson v. Ferguson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (finding reversible error on the face of the amended judgment alone).
discussed Cited "see" Guirgis v. Guirgis
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So.2d 1261, 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that “[t]he most salient impediment to meaningful review of the trial court’s decision is not the absence of findings, but the absence of a transcript” and that because “[t]he appellant has the burden of providing a proper record to the reviewing court ... the failure to do so is ‘usually fatal’ to the appellant’s claims” (quoting Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990))).
discussed Cited "see" Dennison v. Dennison
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (holding that a failure to provide a transcript was not fatal where the judgment showed the trial court committed reversible error in awarding an alimony and child support award which equaled 70% of former husband's income).
discussed Cited "see" Larrea v. Larrea
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)(stating that when a transcript is not provided with the record on appeal, a trial court’s final judgment can be reversed only if an error of law is apparent on the face of the final judgment).
discussed Cited "see" Chirino v. Chirino (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" Guardian. of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, Pa
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Giltex Corp. v. Diehl, 583 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." GEORGE DORA, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARY ROSE MORRISON, THE SURVIVING SPOUSE OF PAUL DOUGLAS MORRISON, AND AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE MARY ROSE AND DOUGLAS MORRISON FAMILY TRUST v. MARC MORRISON, AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE MARY ROSE AND DOUGLAS MORRISON FAMILY TRUST, U/A/D 10/05/2007, JULIE MORRISON POIRIER (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hirsch v. Hirsch, 642 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (“[T]he appellate court is authorized to reverse a judgment as a matter of law where an error of law is apparent on the face of the judgment.” (citing Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990))). 4 The probate rules contain no parallel rules that would authorize a motion to strike. 7 5th DCA 1997)).5 We previously rejected the argument that rule 1.140(f) “provides a mechanism for striking a pleading that proposes to ‘re-hash’ prior issues, causes of action, or previously adjudicated arguments.” Id.
Richard R. CASELLA, Jr., Appellant,
v.
Cheryl D. CASELLA, Appellee.
89-2484.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Nov 7, 1990.
569 So. 2d 848
Polen.
Cited by 42 opinions  |  Published

[*849] Wayne Carson of Law Offices of Vesel & Carson, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Stanley M. Sacks, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

POLEN, Judge.

Appellant, former husband, seeks review of the trial court's amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage. After rendering of the final judgment, in response to the former husband's motion for rehearing and after hearing argument, the trial court, while denying the motion for rehearing, entered an amended final judgment that differed significantly from the final judgment. The final judgment allotted the former husband an imputed gross income of $30,000 and the wife no income. The amended judgment allotted the former husband an imputed gross income of $40,000 and the former wife an imputed income of $12,000. Both judgments required the former husband pay approximately $1824 per month in alimony and child support. The former husband alleges error in the amount of child support and the amount of alimony awarded. We agree and reverse and remand.

As a threshold issue we note the failure to have a court reporter present at either the final hearing or during arguments on the motion for rehearing. Although several exhibits that were introduced into evidence have been submitted to this court, we have no transcript of the proceedings below for review. The decision of the trial court comes to an appellate court clothed in a presumption of correctness and the burden is on appellant to demonstrate reversible error. Therefore, the failure to provide either a transcript or proper substitute for one, such as a reconciliation of the facts by the parties and trial court judge, is usually fatal. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1979).

However, Applegate is not controlling as we find reversible error on the face of the amended judgment alone. Even in light of an imputed $40,000 income, deducting the $1824 per month alimony and child support payment from an appproximate $2600 take-home pay would leave the former husband with approximately $800 a month on which to live. The award is approximately 70 percent of the former husband's net income and clearly excessive. Although we base this decision on Thomas v. Thomas, 418 So.2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), this is not to say that an award amounting to any particular percentage of a party's income forms a bright-line rule resulting in a finding of an excessive award and an abuse of discretion. Each case's resolution must rest on its individual facts. We affirm the dissolution of marriage but reverse and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

HERSEY, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur.