99 So. 3d 981
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellee moves to compel Appellant to designate a complete trial transcript under Fla. R. App. P. 9.200(f)(2).
- Move argues the designated partial transcript is insufficient to address issues on appeal.
- Court notes 9.200(f)(2) exists to prevent affirming based on an incomplete record, but does not authorize ordering full transcript at this stage.
- Rule 9.200(e) allows enforcement by motion, placing burden on the appellant to prepare and transmit the record; the motion here is insufficient.
- Appellant may rely on partial transcript, or none, depending on the issues; appellate rules permit filing only portions deemed necessary (9.200(b)(1)).
- Court denies the motion, clarifying that denial does not decide whether the record is adequate, and cites precedent allowing limited transcripts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court compel a full transcript under 9.200(f)(2)? | Appellee seeks full transcript to address issues. | Rule 9.200(f)(2) does not authorize ordering a complete transcript at this procedural stage. | Denied |
| Can the motion be treated under 9.200(e) or require partial transcript under 9.200(b)(1)? | Appellee should get a full record to prevent cost burden on her. | Rules allow partial transcript and do not require full filing; burden on appellant to tailor record. | Denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Taylor-Christensen, 98 So.3d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (limited transcript permissible where sole issue on appeal)
- Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass’n v. Adderly, 574 So.2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (no transcript necessary where error is on face of injunction order)
- Estes v. Sassano, 47 So.3d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (parties proceed at their peril with partial transcripts)
- Cave v. Rios, 15 So.3d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (cautionary for inadequacy of record when supplement not sought)
- Schmitt v. Maile, 946 So.2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (incomplete record risks adverse consequences)
- Mayfield v. Mayfield, 929 So.2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (warns about determining cases with partial records)
- Moment v. State, 773 So.2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (waiver of supplement right by failure to seek supplementation)
- Cirillo v. Davis, 732 So.2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (waiver principle for failure to supplement after deficiency noted)
- Kauffmann v. Baker, 392 So.2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (waiver of right to supplement when not pursued after deficiency raised)
- Estrada v. Unemp’t Appeals Com’n, 693 So.2d 1091 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (supplementation remedy may be waived if offered at no cost but not pursued)