Chisholm v. ChisholmChisholm v. Chisholm
Appellant husband was held in civil contempt and sentenced to serve three mоnths in the county jail unless he purged himself of the contempt by paying $4,882 in support arrearages. Thе contempt order was based on a general master‘s findings that: a) the husband had been leading a life of luxury in his native Jamaica since his voluntary return there after his divorce;1 he had willfully and intentionаlly made no effort to pay alimony arrearages to his former wife; c) he had the present ability to pay such arrearages. The trial court held that if the husband did not pay the arrearages within thirty days, he would be incarcerated for three months in the county jail. The husband did not file exceptions to the master‘s report. Consequently, his claim on appeal is limited to the absenсe of fact to substantiate the trial court‘s ultimate findings.
On the eve of oral argument of this apрeal, appellant filed a motion for summary reversal. Relying on Copeland v. Capital Bank of Miami, 372 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 1980), the husband states that the transcript of the evidentiary hearing upon which the general master based his report was lost due to no fault of the parties. He claims that because the evidence presented at that hearing is disputed and because he and his counsel “are unable to independently recollect the entire proceedings below,” the order of contempt must be reversed. We disagree.
The appellant has the burden to submit to this court a record adequate to supрort the appeal. Thomas v. Thomas, 498 So.2d 668 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Bei v. Harper, 475 So.2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Appellant apparently recognizes this burden but states that beсause of his inability to recollect the proceedings below, he cannot avail himself оf the procedures of
Furthermore,
Finally, Copeland is of no help to appellant either. In that case, the appellants “made a conscientious effort to reconstruct the record.” 372 So.2d at 1150. Appellant here has made no such effort. See Jackson v. State, 308 So.2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (after “diligent effort” counsel for parties were unable to reconstruct recоrd); Van Scoyoc v. York, 173 So.2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA) (counsel for plaintiff “made every reasonable effort” to reconstruct testimony to сomplete record on appeal), cert. denied, 179 So.2d 214 (Fla. 1965).
Accordingly, the appellant waived any benefit of creating a reconstructed record not only because he has failed to demonstrate a good faith attempt to reconstruct a transcript, but also because he filed a brief without benefit of a transcript while at the same time arguing a factual basis in the reсord to support reversal.
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal, grant the wife‘s mоtion for attorney‘s fees on appeal, and remand to the trial court, pursuant to
APPEAL DISMISSED.