A 2025 Florida appellate decision, Aguirre v. Andrukiebich, serves as one of the most potent examples of the extreme dangers of self-representation and the unforgiving nature of appellate law. In this case, a Father, acting as his own attorney, appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the child support award from a four-day bench trial. Because the Father failed to provide the appellate court with a trial transcript, the court was legally bound to affirm almost every issue he raised.
However, the Father was saved from a total loss by one narrow, critical exception: a “facial error.” The appellate court found a glaring, “internal inconsistency” between the written text of the final judgment and the attached Child Support Guidelines Worksheet. The numbers for the support amount were inverted, creating a legal and mathematical impossibility. Because this error was “apparent on the face of the judgment,” the appellate court was able to reverse and remand this single issue without a transcript.
This case is a stark cautionary tale. It perfectly illustrates the “presumption of correctness” and the “transcript rule” that govern all appeals in Florida, while also demonstrating the very limited exception that can save an appeal. For any individual in Tampa facing a complex family law trial, this case is a vital lesson in the non-negotiable value of procedural correctness and the immense risks of going it alone.
The Iron-Clad Rule of Appeals: The “Presumption of Correctness”
When a family law trial in Hillsborough County concludes and a judge enters a final judgment, that order is not a suggestion; it is a binding legal directive. If a party believes the trial judge made a mistake—whether in calculating income, valuing an asset, or establishing a timesharing schedule—their only remedy is to file an appeal with the Second District Court of Appeal (2DCA), which governs Tampa.
This is where many pro se (self-represented) litigants make their first, and most fatal, mistake. An appeal is not a “do-over” or a new trial. A party does not get to “re-argue” their case to a new panel of judges.
An appeal is a highly technical, limited review to determine if the trial judge committed a legal error. In performing this review, the appellate court does not start from a neutral position. It starts with one of the most powerful doctrines in American law: the “presumption of correctness.”
This presumption means that the appellate court is legally required to assume the trial court’s decision was correct. The entire burden is on the Appellant (the person filing the appeal) to overcome this presumption and affirmatively prove that the trial judge made a reversible error.
This is a very high bar, and it leads directly to the single most important rule in appellate practice: the transcript rule.
The Applegate Rule: Why No Transcript Means No Victory
In the Aguirre case, the Father appealed the child support award from a four-day bench trial. He was, in effect, asking the appellate court to find that the trial judge’s factual findings—about his income, the Mother’s income, their expenses, or their timesharing—were wrong.
But how can an appellate court review those findings? How can they know what evidence was presented, what a vocational expert testified to, what tax returns were admitted, or what the parties stipulated to?
The only way is by reviewing the trial transcript—the official, word-for-word, certified record of everything that was said and done at the trial.
The Father in Aguirre failed to provide this transcript. This failure is not a minor technicality; it is a complete and total failure of the appeal itself. This is governed by a landmark Florida Supreme Court case that every Tampa divorce lawyerknows: Applegate v. Barnett Bank.
The Applegate rule holds that:
- The trial court’s decision is presumed to be correct.
- The appellant has the burden of demonstrating error.
- If the appellant fails to provide a trial transcript, the appellate court cannot review the factual basis for the judge’s ruling.
- Therefore, the appellate court has no choice but to affirm the trial court’s decision, as it is impossible for the appellant to prove the judge was wrong.
This is precisely what happened in Aguirre. The Father raised “several issues regarding child support.” The appellate court was “compelled to affirm as to all other issues” because the “review is hindered by the lack of trial transcripts.”
This rule is absolute. If you are in a Tampa courtroom and you fail to hire a court reporter for your trial, you have, in effect, waived your right to appeal any factual finding the judge makes. You cannot appeal:
- The judge’s finding of your (or your spouse’s) income.
- The judge’s decision to “impute” income to you.
- The judge’s valuation of your home or business.
- The judge’s findings on the “best interests of the child” in a timesharing dispute.
- The judge’s decision that one witness was more credible than another.
A Tampa divorce lawyer understands that the cost of a court reporter is one of the most critical and non-negotiable investments a litigant can make. The Father in Aguirre, by representing himself and failing to secure a transcript for a four-day trial, guaranteed that he would lose his appeal on every substantive issue.
The Narrow Escape Hatch: The “Facial Error” Exception
The Father’s appeal was almost a total loss. He was saved by a very narrow and rare exception to the transcript rule: an “error apparent on the face of the judgment.”
A facial error is a mistake that an appellate court can see just by reading the final judgment. It does not require a transcript because the error is “internal” to the order itself. This is exactly what the Aguirre court found. The judges did not need to know what was said at the four-day trial to see that the trial court’s written judgment was, in a word, nonsensical.
Here is the error the court found:
- The Final Judgment Text: The written paragraphs of the order stated the Father “shall pay… the sum of $434.73per month” for two children, and this amount would change to $141.60 per month for one child when the older child aged out.
- The Attached Worksheet: The judgment “cited to” and “attached” the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet. This worksheet, which is legally part of the order, contained a table that showed the exact opposite. It stated the Father would pay $141.60 for two children and the amount would increase to $434.73 for one child.
This is a clear “internal inconsistency.” The order literally commands the Father to do two different and contradictory things. One of these numbers is clearly a typographical error. But which one?
This is a classic “facial error.” The appellate court, even without a transcript, could see that the judgment was legally flawed. The court did not rule on which number was correct—it had no evidence to do so. Instead, it “reversed in part and remanded” the case. This means it sent the case back to the trial judge with one simple instruction: “Fix this. Issue a new order that is consistent.”
This is a small victory for the Father, but it is a victory. It highlights that even in the absence of a transcript, a final judgment must, at a minimum, be logical, consistent, and mathematically possible. A Tampa divorce lawyer knows that a “forensic” review of the final judgment for these “facial errors” is a critical part of the post-judgment process. Other examples of facial errors that can be reversed without a transcript include:
- A math error in an equitable distribution worksheet.
- Awarding a type of alimony that is no longer legal (like “permanent alimony” in a new case).
- A judge failing to make any of the mandatory written findings for equitable distribution.
- An order that is mathematically impossible (e.g., finding a net income that is higher than the gross income).
The Pro Se Peril: The Real Lesson of Aguirre
This case is, at its core, a cautionary tale about the dangers of self-representation (appearing “pro se”) in family law. Both parties in the Aguirre appeal were pro se. The Father was also pro se for his four-day bench trial.
A four-day trial is an incredibly complex legal proceeding. It involves rules of evidence, rules of procedure, direct and cross-examination of witnesses (perhaps including experts), and the introduction of voluminous financial documents. A non-lawyer is simply not equipped to handle such a proceeding, and they are held to the exact same standard as a licensed attorney.
The Father’s “rookie” mistakes cost him his entire case.
- At Trial: He failed to hire a court reporter, which destroyed his ability to appeal any factual finding from the four-day trial.
- Post-Trial: He failed to file a Motion for Rehearing. This is a critical post-judgment motion where a party tells the trial judge, “Your Honor, you made a mistake, please fix it.” This is often the fastest and cheapest way to fix an error like the one in Aguirre. A Tampa divorce lawyer would have immediately spotted the inverted numbers and filed a motion to correct it, likely saving the client the time and expense of a full appeal.
- On Appeal: By filing an appeal with no transcript, he spent his time and money on a futile effort, only to be saved by a “typo.”
This is a classic “pyrrhic victory.” The Father “won” his appeal, but his prize is that he gets to go back to the trial court to continue fighting over an issue that a Tampa divorce lawyer likely would have identified and resolved years earlier.
This case perfectly demonstrates the value of hiring a qualified Tampa divorce lawyer. An attorney’s job is not just to argue your case at trial; it is to follow the complex procedures that protect your rights at every stage. This includes hiring a court reporter, meticulously reviewing financial documents like the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet for accuracy before they are submitted, and carefully proofreading the final judgment for “facial errors” that can be fixed.
The Aguirre case is a clear signal from the courts: if you choose to represent yourself, you do so at your own peril. The rules are complex, the procedures are unforgiving, and a single mistake—like failing to order a transcript—is irreversible.
Conclusion
The Aguirre v. Andrukiebich decision reinforces two fundamental pillars of Florida family law. First, the right to an appeal is not absolute; it is contingent on a party’s ability to provide the appellate court with a sufficient record, and the trial transcript is the “heart” of that record. Without it, the “presumption of correctness” is all but insurmountable. Second, a final judgment must be coherent. A judge cannot sign an order that is “internally inconsistent” and legally impossible to follow.
The law governing child support and appeals is technical and precise. A pro se litigant, while trying to save money, often makes irreversible procedural errors that cost them far more in the long run. If you are a resident of Tampa or Hillsborough County and are facing a divorce or paternity action, do not make these same mistakes. Contact our office for a consultation with an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer who can ensure your case is handled correctly from start to finish, protecting your rights at trial and preserving your right to an appeal.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is the “presumption of correctness” in a Florida appeal? This is the legal standard that requires an appellate court to assume the trial judge’s decision was correct. The burden is 100% on the appellant (the person filing the appeal) to prove the judge made a legal error, which is very difficult to do.
Why do I need a trial transcript to appeal my Tampa divorce? A transcript is the official word-for-word record of your trial. If you want to argue that the judge’s decision was wrong (e.g., about your income, or who was a more credible witness), you must provide the transcript so the appellate court can review the evidence. Without it, your appeal will almost certainly be affirmed.
What is a “facial error” in a final judgment? A “facial error” is a mistake that is obvious just by reading the order itself. The Aguirre case, where the written order’s child support numbers were the opposite of the attached worksheet’s numbers, is a perfect example. An appellate court can fix a facial error without a transcript.
What is a Child Support Guidelines Worksheet? This is the mandatory, official form used in Florida to calculate child support. It shows all the inputs (incomes, overnights, insurance costs) and the final mathematical calculation. It must be filed with the court and should be attached to or identified in the final judgment.
What does it mean when a case is “remanded”? “Remand” means the appellate court is sending the case back to the trial judge with specific instructions. In the Aguirre case, the case was remanded with the simple instruction to “address this inconsistency” and issue a new, corrected order.
The McKinney Law Group: Divorce Representation That Fits Your Tampa Life
We tailor every case to the client’s needs. Whether you’re protecting a business, dividing property, or negotiating custody, our Tampa divorce attorneys provide customized, focused support.
Call 813-428-3400 or email [email protected] to schedule a consultation.