GEORGE JOANNOU, APPELLANT
v.
DORA JOANNOU, 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 an appeal from a final decree awarding a wife separate maintenance alimony, exclusive use of the marital home, and other financial support. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no error in the chancellor's findings of fact based on the evidence presented.
No, the chancellor did not err. The appellate court found that the record supported the chancellor's findings and the decree should not be disturbed.
“It would serve no useful purpose for this court to reiterate the many decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida and the district courts holding that an appellate court will not retry and reweigh testimony and evidence which are given before a chancellor unless it is clearly demonstrated that the chancellor has misconceived the weight and probative effect of the evidence, has failed to apply the proper rule of law or has applied an inapplicable rule of law.”
Establishes the standard of review for appellate courts regarding a chancellor's findings of fact.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee wife sought and was awarded separate maintenance alimony, exclusive use of the jointly owned home, payment of property charges, use of an…
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 Appellate Review Of Chancellor'S Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is- from a final decree awarding the appellee wife separate maintenance alimony, exclusive use and possession of a jointly owned home, requiring the appellee wife to pay all charges against the jointly owned property from an alimony award of $400 per month, the possession and use of an automobile,' attorney’s fees and court costs.
The appellant has raised seven points in his brief which, when boiled down, simply take issue with the findings of the chancellor based upon the testimony and evidence submitted. He contends that the appellee wife failed to prove the allegations of her complaint for alimony unconnected with divorce (§ 65.09, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) for the reason that her testimony and evidence were not sufficiently corroborated, and further, that such acts as were testified to by appellee and her witness fell short of such acts or conduct as would justify a decree. Likewise, the appellant contends that the award of alimony, use and occupancy of the jointly owned property, use and possession of an automobile, attorney’s fees and court costs was unsupported by the record of testimony and evidence, particularly so because, as appellant contends, it was shown that the wife had money of her own and was well able to sustain herself, pay counsel fees and court costs.
It would serve no useful purpose for this court to reiterate the many decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida and the district courts holding that an appel*41late court will not retry and reweigh testimony and evidence which are given before a chancellor unless it is clearly demonstrated that the chancellor has misconceived the weight and probative effect of the evidence, has failed to apply the proper rule of law or has applied an inapplicable rule of law. This the appellant has failed to demonstrate. The record before us supports the chancellor’s findings and his decree should not be disturbed. See Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663.
Accordingly, the decree appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Hollywood v. The Hollywood Beach Hotel Co., 283 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…ity has not clearly demonstrated that the chancellor misconceived the weight and probative effect of the evidence or failed to apply the proper rule of law. Accordingly, I would affirm the decree of the lower court. Joannou v. Joannou, Fla.App.1960, 117 So. 2d 40.…
-
Hieber v. Hieber, 151 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…cord in their holdings that the chancellor’s finding will not be lightly disturbed, as they are generally presumed to be correct. Picchi v. Picchi, Fla.1958, 100 So. 2d 627; Evans v. Evans, Fla. 1954, 70 So. 2d 506; Joannou v. Joannou, Fla.App.1960, 117 So. 2d 40; King v. King, Fla.App.1958, 107 So. 2d 259; Talbot v. Talbot, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 410; Mickler v. Mickler, Fla. App.1958, 101 So. 2d 157. From our examination of the agreement and the evidence adduced by the parties, we have also concluded th…
-
Huwer v. Huwer, 175 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…e evidence, or has failed to apply the proper rules of law, or has applied an inapplicable rule of law. A careful study of the record fails to demonstrate such errors as would justify disturbing the court’s decree. Joannou v. Joannou, Fla.App.1960, 117 So. 2d 40. Affirmed. SHANNON, Acting C. J., and STUR-GIS, WALLACE E., Associate Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, 96 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)