Mousa Alzirghani, Former Husband v. Shaimaa Algabah, Former Wife
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledNovember 24, 2021
Docket1D20-2615
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D20-2615
_____________________________
MOUSA ALZIRGHANI, Former
Husband,
Appellant,
v.
SHAIMAA ALGABAH, Former
Wife,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
Suzanne Bass, Judge.
November 24, 2021
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment of dissolution on review comes to us with
“the presumption of correctness,” so the former husband, as the
appellant, bears the burden of demonstrating reversible error.
Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152
(Fla. 1979). The husband failed to include in the record a transcript
of the hearing that led to the final judgment, so we are unable to
address his argument that the trial court abused its discretion
when it crafted the equitable distribution between the parties. See
id. (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court
can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to
conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the
evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual
context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that
the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”).
That leaves us with the former husband’s contention that the
judgment is facially deficient. Cf. Klette v. Klette, 785 So. 2d 562,
563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (explaining “that the lack of a transcript is
not fatal” where “reversible error is apparent from the face of the
order on appeal”). However, the former husband failed to raise the
deficiency with the trial court in a motion for rehearing, so even
that issue is not preserved for our review. See Williams v.
Williams, 152 So. 3d 702, 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (explaining that
“where an error by the court appears for the first time on the face
of a final order, a party must alert the court of the error via a
motion for rehearing or some other appropriate motion in order to
preserve it for appeal”).
AFFIRMED.
WINOKUR, NORDBY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Aaron M. Makofka of Makofka & Makofka, Jacksonville, for
Appellant.
Boris Galustov, David P. Grigaltchik, and Adam P. Rowe of
Grigaltchik & Galustov, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.
2