Moyer v. MoyerMoyer v. Moyer
The defendant husband appeals from a final decree of divorce entered in favor of the appellee wife. The decree included a lump sum alimony provision. Appellant‘s sole point is directed to a determination of the propriety of the lump sum alimony award. The record with which we are presented contains only the pleadings in the case. Inasmuch as we are unable to determine the propriety of the award to which error is assigned without reference to the evidence before the chancellor, we affirm the decree. Hall v. Davis, Fla.App. 1958, 106 So.2d 599; Greene v. Hoiriis, Fla.App. 1958, 103 So.2d 226.
Although not necessary to a decision in this case it should be noted that the obligation to furnish a record sufficient to support the appeal is upon the party urging error.
There are undoubtedly occasions where even the most fair-minded protagonists cannot agree upon a statement of the testimony which was not reported. The legislature has provided a method for the inclusion of a statement of testimony by recital in an order of the court.2 Cf. Cleary Bros. Const. Co. v. Phelps, 156 Fla. 461, 24 So.2d 51. See also Vliet v. Anthony, 119 Fla. 638, 160 So. 663, 664, which although decided under a procedure no longer followed contains the following statement of law which is still applicable:
“* * * It is the duty of a court a quo to perfect its records in a case being appealed, in order that the final record taken to the appellate court by means of a transcript of it may truly reflect there the record of what was acted upon in the court a quo * *.”
Having determined that a sufficient record was not presented for a review of this cause it appears that the appellant has failed to demonstrate error and that the decree of the court below must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
HORTON, C.J., and CARROLL, CHAS., J., concur.