MAX BELIN, APPELLANT,
v.
CARMEN SANCHEZ, 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.
This case involves a bastardy action where the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment establishing paternity and awarding child support and attorneys' fees. The court found sufficient evidence to support the paternity finding and deemed the attorneys' fees award adequate.
Yes, the trial court's finding of paternity was supported by competent, substantial evidence. Yes, the award of attorneys' fees was sufficient for the services rendered.
“The learned chancellor saw and observed all these people (neither party having requested a jury trial — Sec. 742.031, F.S.A.) and concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that the defendant was the father of the child.”
This quote establishes the trial court's role in assessing evidence and witnesses and the basis for its paternity finding.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff brought a bastardy action against the defendant. The trial court, after observing the parties and hearing evidence, found the defendant …
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 Paternity Action cases and more on FLexlaw
The trial court awarded the plaintiff in this bastardy action a judgment in the amount prescribed in the statute (Chapter 742, F.S.A.) and substantial attorneys’ fees. Both awards are before us on appeal.
The learned chancellor saw and observed all these people (neither party having requested a jury trial — Sec. 742.031, F.S.A.) and concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that the defendant was the father of the child. There was competent, substantial evidence in the record to sustain him — and he did not misconstrue its legal effect. The award to the plaintiff is therefore affirmed.
The cross assignment of errqr questioning the sufficiency of the award of attorneys’ fees is without merit. We hold the award was sufficient for the services rendered.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.