Case Name: Arnold ROSENSTEIN, d/b/a Chatham Construction Co., Appellant, v. Jerald RATICOFF and Joan Raticoff, his wife, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1972-07-25
Citations: 265 So. 2d 387
Docket Number: No. 71-922
Parties: Arnold ROSENSTEIN, d/b/a Chatham Construction Co., Appellant, v. Jerald RATICOFF and Joan Raticoff, his wife, Appellees.
Judges: REED, C. J., and WALDEN and MAG-ER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 265
Pages: 387–387

Head Matter:
Arnold ROSENSTEIN, d/b/a Chatham Construction Co., Appellant, v. Jerald RATICOFF and Joan Raticoff, his wife, Appellees.
No. 71-922.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 25, 1972.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 25, 1972.
J. I. Watson, Hollywood, for appellant.
James A. Dixon, Jr., and Dixon, Dixon, Lane & Mitchell, Miami, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
While we agree with each of the abstract legal propositions advanced by appellant, we find that we are unable to apply them in the instant appeal and unable to determine that reversible error has been committed. The reason is that we have not been furnished with the record, or enough of it, whereby we can conclusively and definitively determine the whole factual basis for the trial court decisions. The judgment comes, of course, with a presumption of correctness and it is the duty of appellant to demonstrate error by furnishing the basis upon which the rulings were made in order that we may review same and decide their correctness. Belflower v. Risher, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 702; Warriner v. Doug Tower, Inc,, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 384; Brown v. Householder, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 801.
Affirmed.
REED, C. J., and WALDEN and MAG-ER, JJ., concur.