Pitcher v. Schneider , 236 So. 3d 1195 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •           IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FIFTH DISTRICT
    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
    DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
    MICHAEL PITCHER,
    Appellant,
    v.                                                         Case No. 5D17-1937
    SUSAN SCHNEIDER,
    Appellee.
    ________________________________/
    Opinion filed February 23, 2018
    Appeal from the Circuit Court
    for Brevard County,
    George Paulk, Judge.
    Eduardo J. Mejias, of AAA Family Law,
    LLC, Altamonte Springs, for Appellant.
    Harley I. Gutin, Cocoa, for Appellee.
    COHEN, C.J.
    Susan Schneider and Michael Pitcher are the unmarried parents of two minor
    children. Pitcher appeals a final judgment establishing paternity, raising several issues
    that all pertain to the trial court’s determination of the time-sharing schedule for the parties’
    children. Pitcher acknowledges that there is no trial transcript or other recreation of the
    testimony and evidence presented below. However, he maintains that the trial court’s
    legal errors are evident on the face of the final judgment and thus a transcript is
    unnecessary.
    Pitcher’s argument lacks merit. Without a transcript, “we cannot resolve the
    underlying factual issues in order to determine whether the trial court’s judgment . . . is
    without evidentiary support.” See McQuade v. Holroyd, 
    208 So. 3d 848
    (Fla. 5th DCA
    2017) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 
    377 So. 2d 1150
    , 1152 (Fla.
    1979)). Indeed, having reviewed the record, as well as the extensive final judgment and
    parenting plan, we conclude that Pitcher has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating
    any error. See 
    Applegate, 377 So. 2d at 1152
    .
    Nonetheless, we write to acknowledge the excellence of the trial court’s final
    judgment of paternity entered in this case. The judgment is thorough, applies the correct
    legal standards, and is replete with fact-finding and analysis. Appellate courts are error
    correcting courts, and while Pitcher may not agree with the trial court’s findings, “it is not
    the role of an appellate court . . . to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” See
    G.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 
    791 So. 2d 17
    , 21 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Accordingly, the
    final judgment is affirmed in all respects.
    AFFIRMED.
    SAWAYA and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 5D17-1937

Citation Numbers: 236 So. 3d 1195

Filed Date: 2/19/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021