MAERZ v. MAERZ (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Christopher MAERZ, Appellant, v. Brittani MAERZ, Appellee.

Case No. 5D20-2642

Decided: March 02, 2021

Clifford A. Taylor, John E. Napolitano, and Megan A. Rosenberg, of The Hogan Law Firm, Spring Hill, for Appellant. William D. Slicker, of William D. Slicker, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellee.

AFFIRMED. See Garcia v. Garcia, 958 So. 2d 947, 948–49 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“[B]ecause the Appellant failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the hearing below, the record presented to us is inadequate to demonstrate whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to transfer venue.” (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979))); Farrey's Wholesale Hardware Co. v. Hobesound Indus. Park, Inc., 719 So. 2d 374, 375 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“The ‘Tipsy Coachman’ rule provides that if the lower court assigns an erroneous reason for its decision, the decision will be affirmed where there is some other reason or basis to support it.” (citing Carraway v. Armour & Co., 156 So. 2d 494, 497 (Fla. 1963))).

PER CURIAM.

COHEN, LAMBERT, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network