CENAC v. FRANCOIS (2024)

Because the Appellant has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate reversible error, we affirm. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“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.”); Pierre v. Bueven, 276 So. 3d 917, 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“Because there is no transcript of the final hearing, this Court is unable to determine whether there was competent, substantial evidence presented below that permitted the lower court to properly evaluate the section 61.13(3)(a)-(t) factors when it made its parental responsibility and time-sharing determinations.”); Montas v. Del Valle, 773 So. 2d 68, 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“A father seeks review of an order which contains a substantial upward modification in his child support obligations. Because the record does not include a transcript of the evidentiary proceedings before the general master or the trial judge, we have no choice but to affirm.”).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.