CHRISTOPHER MAERZ vs BRITTANI MAERZ

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CHRISTOPHER MAERZ, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D20-2642 BRITTANI MAERZ, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed March 2, 2021 Nonfinal Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Christina Serrano, Judge. 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. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.