Wells v. Wells
In an appeal from a supplemental judgment modifying timesharing and parental responsibility, the appellant conceded no trial transcript existed and, only after briefing closed and in response to a rule 9.200(f)(2) order, moved for time to prepare a statement of the evidence under rule 9.200(b)(5). The First DCA denied the motion and affirmed under Applegate, clarifying that rule 9.200(f)(2) supplementation applies only to omitted portions of an existing record, not to creating a substitute for a nonexistent transcript, and that an appellant who sits on a known record deficiency may waive the chance to reconstruct the record.
Key facts
- Appellant Wells appealed from a supplemental judgment in a family law case modifying timesharing and parental responsibility.
- No trial transcript existed in the record, and appellant did not move to reconstruct the record until after briefing was complete and in response to an appellate court order.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a rare published opinion mapping the district split over whether rule 9.200(b)(5) statements of the evidence carry time limits (3d/5th DCA yes; 4th DCA no) and squarely holding that rule 9.200(f)(2) cannot be… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.