No. 64-40 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Mar 17, 1964

PER CURIAM.

By this interlocutory appeal, the appellant brings on for review a post-final decree order modifying that portion of a final, decree of divorce awarding her the custody of the minor child of the parties.

Unfortunately, we were not presented with a transcript of the proceedings which took place before the chancellor upon the petition for modification, as there was no court reporter present. Without such a record, it is impossible for this court to determine if the chancellor abused his discretion. See: Hall v. Davis, Fla.App.1958, 106 So. 2d 599" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1958-11-20" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hall-v-davis-1735709?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1735709">106 So.2d 599; Insana v. Hasty, Fla.App. 1959, 109 So. 2d 791" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1959-03-17" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-ex-rel-kearney-v-board-of-public-instructions-4769270?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="4769270">109 So.2d 791; Southern National Bank of Fort Walton Beach v. Young, Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 788" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1962-07-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/southern-national-bank-of-fort-walton-beach-v-young-4780275?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="4780275">142 So.2d 788. Once again, for the benefit of the bar, attention is called to the appropriate procedure to be used to-establish a record when no court reporter was present at the hearing. See: Downing v. Bird, Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 559" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1962-10-16" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/downing-v-bird-1698636?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1698636">145 So.2d 559; Pottash v. Dry & Company, 8 Fla.Supp. 174.

Therefore, without the benefit of the evidence upon which the chancellor rendered' his decision, we must accept his order as-correct and same is hereby affirmed, without prejudice to the appellant to apply to the-chancellor for reasonable rights of visitation and to seek a modification of the custody order at any time in'the future, in the-event of new conditions arising which *539would justify a modification thereof for the best interests of the child. See: Sayward v. Sayward, Fla.1949, 43 So. 2d 865" court="Fla." date_filed="1949-11-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/sayward-v-sayward-3395955?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3395955">43 So.2d 865; 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce, § 262.

Affirmed.

© 2024 Midpage AI does not provide legal advice. By using midpage, you consent to our Terms and Conditions.