A. GUERRA, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CLORINDA GUITERREZ, APPELLEE
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.
A widow sought to exempt certain property from attachment as exempt family property under Florida's constitution. The trial court found the property was not partnership property and thus subject to exemption, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial judge's factual findings are presumed correct and will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.
The trial judge's finding that the property was not partnership property and was therefore exempt is affirmed, as the evidence supports the trial court's determination and trial courts' factual findings are presumed correct absent clear error.
“In equity, as at law, every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the trial judge, and a decree based largely or solely upon questions of fact will not be reversed, unless the evidence clearly shows that it was erroneous.”
Establishes the standard of review for appellate examination of trial court factual findings and the strong presumption in favor of the trial judge's ruling.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClorinda Guiterrez, by her next friend Pedro Sierra, filed a bill in chancery against A. Guerra and J. Guerra (copartners trading as A. Guerra & Son) …
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 Partnership Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Shackleford, C. J.
Clorinda Guiterrez, by her next friend Pedro Sierra, filed her bill in chancery against A. Guerra and J. Guerra, late copartners doing business as A. Guerra & Son, in which the principal relief sought was to have certain goods and chattels set aside to the complainant as exempt under the constitution of Florida, it being alleged that the complainant was the head of a family residing in this State. The defendants had caused a writ of attachment to be levied upon such property as the property of Ramon Guiterrez and Carlos Guiterrez, copartners trading' together under the firm name and style of C. Guiterrez & Brother. The defendants filed an answer in which, they denied material allegations of the bill. No replication seems to have been filed to. the answer, but an agreement of the respective counsel was filed to the effect that the Circuit Judge should proceed to hear the cause upon the merits as shown by the bill and answer and render a final decree therein. In pursuance of such stipulation of counsel, the Circuit Judge proceeded to hear such cause and rendered a final decree in favor of the complainant, in which he recited that the testimony t was adduced before him in open court. From this decree the defendants have entered their appeal. The assignment which is chiefly relied upon and which may be said to be the only one which is argued is the sixth, which reads as follows:
“Sixth. Because the Court erred in decreeing that the property involved in this cause is not partnership property.”
It might well be questioned as to whether the evidence is so incorporated in the transcript as to be properly before us for consideration, but, as no point is made as to this, and the respective counsel ask us to consider it, we have proceeded to do so and after a careful examination thereof are of the opinion that it sustains the finding of the Circuit Judge. ' In this case, as we have already stated, the testimony was taken in open court before the Judge, who was thereby afforded the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses. As we have repeatedly held, “In equity, as at law, every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the ruling of. the trial judge, and a decree based largely or solely upon questions of fact will not be reversed, unless the evidence clearly shows that it was erroneous.” Mock v. Thompson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 South. Rep. 673. The decree must be affirmed.
Taylor. Cockrell, Hockisr and Whitfield. J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Travis v. Sim Travis, 81 Fla. 309 (Fla. 1921)…Mickens, 75 Fla. 391, 78 South. Rep. 287; Smith v. O’Brien, 75 Fla. 252, 78 South. Rep. 13; Simpson, Trustee, v. First National Bank, 75 Fla. 539, 77 South. Rep. 204; Farrell v. Forest Inv. Co., 73 Fla. 191, 74 South. Rep. 216; Guerra v. Guiterrez, 66 Fla. 570, 64 South. Rep. 232. Stated somewhat differently, the finding of a chancellor on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed by an appellate court where the mind cannot repose with entire confidence and certainty on a conclusion in favor of either pa…
-
Harmon v. Harmon, 40 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1949)…ncellor; that a final decree, based largely or solely on questions of fact, will not be reversed unless the evidence clearly shows it to have been erroneous, Hamilton v. Laesch,134 Fla. 591, 184 So. 110, a rule which was said in Guerra v. Guiterrez, 66 Fla. 570, 64 So. 232, to be especially applicable where the trial judge had heard the testimony. It would seem from this pronouncement that the presumption is one of degree, being stronger when the chancellor has himself heard the witnesses testify. This emp…
-
Williams v. Bailey, 69 Fla. 225 (Fla. 1915)…he decree was based largely on questions of fact. The principles of the law which he evidently applied to those facts we think are sound and were correctly applied. Every presumption is in favor of the ruling of the trial judge. Guerra v. Guiterrez, 66 Fla. 570, 64 South. Rep. 232; Mock v. Thompson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 South. Rep. 673. The decree is affirmed. Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mock v. Green B. Thompson, 58 Fla. 477 (Fla. 1909)