HomeMy WebLinkAbout2197 . w
.
.
~ •
• ~ . ~
• ~ -
As to appellant's ftrst and second~points we note that appel- -
lant's afftrmative defenses and countercieim (the pleadtngs which,
tc~ether with appellees' comptair.t, created the issu~s to be tried at
the first tr~al of this matter} are based upon appellees' allegedly
fraudulent reoresentation uf their title as demonstrated by the en-
croachment problem, The matter went to trial and at the conclusion
appeltant elected to reinstute th~ contract. La«~ olx~ defaulted
again and the fort~closure d~cree was cntered. We have no way of
knowing how the trfal judge arrivcd a[ the conclusion appeltees were
entitled to a judgment of forectosure un May 14, 1973, or on October
24~ 1974. Those decisior_s were based upon hearings at which testi-
mony was taken, an~ appellant has fail:d to include transci•ipts of
those proceeding~ in the record on appeal, Such faiture constitute~
grcx?nds for affirmance. See, e, g. , Davis v, Fountain, Fla, App,
1973, 284 So.2d 471.
For the foreg~ing reasons we affirm the order and judgment
f under rev iew, ~
~ -
AFFIRMED,
MAGER, j. ~ and BERANEK, jOHN R, , Associate Judge~ concur.
~
~
~
_ ;
4, .
SOOK PACf
- = , - - - ~ - - - ~ ~
. _ ' ~