FRANK J. JURNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
DOROTHY M. JURNEY, 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.
The appellate court reversed a divorce decree, finding insufficient evidence of extreme cruelty or marital dereliction by the husband to support the lower court's ruling.
No, there was no substantial evidence of extreme cruelty or marital dereliction by the husband to support the divorce decree.
“Upon an appeal from a final decree favorable to the plaintiff, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the chancellor who heard the evidence, unless there is no substantial evidence to sustain the decree or unless the decree is against the clear weight of the evidence or induced by an erroneous view of the law.”
This quote establishes the standard of review for appeals of divorce decrees.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee-wife sued the appellant-husband for divorce, alleging extreme cruelty. The chancellor entered a final decree for the wife. The husband ap…
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 Standard Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee-wife sued appellant for a divorce and the chancellor, after hearing the evidence, entered a final decree for the ap-pellee-plaintiff-wife, and thereupon the husband-defendant appealed. We find error and reverse.
Upon an appeal from a final decree favorable to the plaintiff, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the chancellor who heard the evidence, unless there is no substantial evidence to sustain the decree or unless the decree is against the clear weight of the evidence or induced by an erroneous view of the law.
The plaintiff-appellee, as the prevailing party, is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to her; however, in this case, we find no substantial evidence of extreme cruelty inflicted on the wife by the husband as alleged as a ground for the suit, nor any evidence of substantial dereliction on his part in his obligations as a husband.
The decree appealed is reversed.
HORTON, Acting Chief Judge, PEARSON, J., and BARNS, PAUL D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Williams, 177 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…ude on these issues, but was sufficient to support his finding and division of the assets. Giving such evidence as there was all reasonable inference, which we are required to do in examining a record on appeal [see: Jurney v. Jurney, Fla.App. 1959, 110 So. 2d 49; Bordacs v. Kimmel, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 506], we find no error in this regard. It was certainly no error to divide the property which was held in their joint names. As to the alimony, clearly the wife had a need of at least $100.00 a week and…
-
Town OF Medley v. Seminole Rock Prods., Inc., 138 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…hat of the chancellor, who heard the evidence, unless there is no substantial evidence to sustain the decree or unless the decree is against the clear weight of the evidence or induced by an erroneous view of the law. Jurney v. Jurney, Fla.App.1959, 110 So. 2d 49. The contract, introduced into evidence as the Town’s Exhibit K, contains various and sundry obligations of the parties and required the appellee to post a $10,000.00 surety bond to ensure performance by it under the agreement. The contract further…
-
Forrest Adams v. McDONALD, 356 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…a proper view of the applicable law. However, where the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence and is contrary to the law of this state as pronounced by our appellate courts, we have no other alternative but to reverse. Jurney v. Jurney, 110 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). The key to this case is that the ap-pellees’ payments to the contractor, “Mr. Exteriors”, were improper under the Mechanics’ Lien Law. This is true because of their failure to file a notice of commencement and their failure to o…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence