RONALD L. MARCOUX, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
CATHERINE M. MARCOUX, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellate courts cannot re-determine facts if competent substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings.
[1] Appellate courts cannot act as new fact finders when competent substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court's findings.
[2] A trial court's factual determination is presumed correct if supported by competent substantial evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties disputed the valuation of the husband's corporation, with conflicting expert testimony presented to the trial court. The trial court adopt…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Scope Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKETT, Judge.
This case returns to us for review and reconsideration as a result of the quashing of our prior decision. Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1985). The supreme court did not consider the merits of the cause and restricted itself to correcting the view that Conner v. Conner, 439 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983) and Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1983), limited the scope of appellate review enunciated in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties. The major point of contention is the valuation placed on the husband’s corporation. Accountants for both the husband and wife testified to conflicting values before the trial court ranging from $80,000 by the husband’s accountant to approximately $300,000 by the wife’s accountant. It is apparent from the final judgment that the court believed the wife’s accountant. Accordingly, the issue here is not whether the trial court abused its discretion in fashioning a remedy based on the facts as he found them, but whether he was correct in his determination of the facts. So long as there is evidence to support the trial court’s finding, appellate courts cannot act as new fact finders in the stead of the trial judge. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976). As our supreme court points out in Marcoux, the error in Conner was that the district court acted as a fact finder:
If a reviewing court finds that there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support a particular award, then there is logic and justification for the result and it is unlikely that no reasonable person would adopt the view taken by the trial court. Under these circumstances, there is no abuse of discretion.
Marcoux, 464 So. 2d at 544.
In reviewing the record in light of the above, we find that the trial court, as the fact finder, had before it competent and substantial evidence upon which to base its award. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
HERSEY, C.J., concurs.
LETTS, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Polley v. Polley, 588 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…n of the PPC stock must be supported by competent substantial evidence. Eckroade v. Eckroade, 570 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Ross v. Bandi, 566 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Hamm v. Hamm, 492 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Marcoux v. Marcoux, 475 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), review denied, 486 So. 2d 597 (Fla.1986); Greer v. Greer, 438 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Hair v. Hair, 402 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1982). Absent such evidence, the trial court’s v…
-
McDANIEL v. McDANIEL, 653 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…hat the C.P.A. was able to render an opinion regarding the value of the husband’s stock. Expert opinion testimony by accountants is clearly acceptable in a dissolution proceeding. Ross v. Bandi, 566 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Marcoux v. Marcoux, 475 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 486 So. 2d 597 (Fla.1986). We also point out that the only opposing testimony as to value came from two shareholders of the corporation. See Ross (court found that shareholder’s testimony was inadequate). In light o…
-
Pappalardo Constr. Co. & the Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Buck, 568 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…la.1983). The trial court found privity between the owner and the contractor in the instant case so that notice to owner was not required. If competent, substantial evidence supports the finding, this court should not disturb it. Marcoux v. Marcoux, 475 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 486 So. 2d 597 (Fla.1986). The trial court’s findings are supported by the record. Vincent J. Pappalardo knew of and ratified the contract with Buck. In fact, Pappalardo’s attorney stated at trial, “Obviously we ha…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1983)
- Doyle Edward Conner v. Conner, 439 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1983)
- Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1985)