From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maerz v. Maerz

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
Mar 2, 2021
312 So. 3d 225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)

Opinion

Case No. 5D20-2642

03-02-2021

Christopher MAERZ, Appellant, v. Brittani MAERZ, Appellee.

Clifford A. Taylor, John E. Napolitano, and Megan A. Rosenberg, of The Hogan Law Firm, Spring Hill, for Appellant. William D. Slicker, of William D. Slicker, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellee.


Clifford A. Taylor, John E. Napolitano, and Megan A. Rosenberg, of The Hogan Law Firm, Spring Hill, for Appellant.

William D. Slicker, of William D. Slicker, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Garcia v. Garcia , 958 So. 2d 947, 948–49 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) ("[B]ecause the Appellant failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the hearing below, the record presented to us is inadequate to demonstrate whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to transfer venue." (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) )); Farrey's Wholesale Hardware Co. v. Hobesound Indus. Park, Inc. , 719 So. 2d 374, 375 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) ("The ‘Tipsy Coachman’ rule provides that if the lower court assigns an erroneous reason for its decision, the decision will be affirmed where there is some other reason or basis to support it." (citing Carraway v. Armour & Co. , 156 So. 2d 494, 497 (Fla. 1963) )).

COHEN, LAMBERT, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Maerz v. Maerz

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
Mar 2, 2021
312 So. 3d 225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)
Case details for

Maerz v. Maerz

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER MAERZ, Appellant, v. BRITTANI MAERZ, Appellee.

Court:DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

Date published: Mar 2, 2021

Citations

312 So. 3d 225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)