From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McGlamry v. Voytek

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 2, 1995
659 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Opinion

No. 95-0008.

August 16, 1995. Rehearing Denied October 2, 1995.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Broward County; Lawrence J. Korda, Judge.

Darryl McGlamry, Jesup, GA, pro se appellant.

No appearance by appellee.


Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1979). The appellant claims that he did not receive proper notice of a hearing on his motion to hold appellee in contempt for failure to provide him the agreed visitation with his daughter. At a hearing set by appellee to strike the case from a trial calendar, the trial court ruled on the earlier filed motion for contempt. We are advised by appellant himself that he testified as to the matter of visitation and thus the issues were addressed at the hearing. It is appellant's duty to provide this court with a record which demonstrates the error complained of. Without a record we cannot determine whether the appellant objected at the hearing to the court's determination of the matter of visitation. By failing to object or by proceeding with the substance of the motion, appellant would have waived any objections to lack of notice. Without a proper record we also cannot determine whether the court erred in the substance of the order entered.

Finally, we note that appellee has conceded in her answer brief that the trial court does have continuing jurisdiction over this matter.

DELL, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McGlamry v. Voytek

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 2, 1995
659 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Case details for

McGlamry v. Voytek

Case Details

Full title:DARRYL JAMES McGLAMRY, APPELLANT, v. KAY ELIZABETH VOYTEK, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Oct 2, 1995

Citations

659 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Citing Cases

P.B. v. Department of Children & Family Services

The first time they raised the issue was on appeal. By failing to object and by proceeding on the matter at…

Derosa v. Pugliese

Therefore, appellants were not required to raise the argument in the trial court that the default was void in…