ARTHUR A. LYNCH, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD COPPOLA AND PHILIP EPIFANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES; VERO INVESTORS, LTD., A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPOSED OF VINCENT J. ANTHONY AND DONALD COPPOLA, AS GENERAL PARTNERS; AND ST. FRANCIS CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES; KENNITH FRANK, APPELLANT, V. DONALD COPPOLA AND PHILIP EPIFANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES; VERO INVESTORS, LTD., A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPOSED OF VINCENT J. ANTHONY AND DONALD COPPOLA, AS GENERAL PARTNERS; AND ST. FRANCIS CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 consolidated appeal involved multiple actions concerning factual disputes, where the appellate court affirmed the chancellor's final decree. The court emphasized the deference owed to a chancellor who personally heard witnesses, stating that factual findings will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.
No, the chancellor did not err in their factual findings. The appellate court found no reversible error in the chancellor's decree.
“Every presumption favors the correctness of rulings of the chancellor and a final decree largely or solely predicated on questions of fact will not be reversed unless the evidence clearly shows it to have been erroneous, and a presumption is stronger when the chancellor has himself heard the witnesses testify.”
This quote establishes the legal standard of review for factual findings made by a chancellor who personally heard witnesses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case originated as four separate actions consolidated into a single appeal with a twelve-volume record. The chancellor issued a final decree conta…
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 Factual Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
This consolidated appeal originated as four separate actions before the chancellor and is a twelve volume record before us. The final decree appealed from composed five pages of findings and six pages of adjudications. No useful purpose can be served by delineating the evidence before the chancellor. Each of the assignments of error in these appeals complains of the chancellor’s findings. The chancellor personally saw and heard the witnesses testify. Every presumption favors the correctness of rulings of the chancellor and a final de*184cree largely or solely predicated on questions of fact will not be reversed unless the evidence clearly shows it to have been erroneous, and a presumption is stronger when the chancellor has himself heard the witnesses testify. Moreover, one who complains of error must make such error clearly appear. Harmon v. Harmon, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 209; and Videon v. Hodge, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 396.
We conclude, upon careful review, that no reversible error has been made to appear and, accordingly, the final decree of the chancellor is affirmed.
KANNER, Acting C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Dade Cnty. v. Pepper, 168 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…962, 139 So. 2d 159; Frell v. Frell, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 706; City of Miami Beach v. Seacoast Towers-Miami Beach, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 156 So. 2d 528. It was incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate error. See: Lynch v. Coppola, Fla.App.1961, 129 So. 2d 183; Weintraub v. Field, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 54; Groover v. Simonhoff, Fla.App. 1963, 157 So. 2d 541. If the record on appeal supports the action of the trial judge, he should be affirmed. See: Davis v. Levin, Fla.App.1962, 138 So. 2d 351; Bargeon…
-
Rimer v. The Mortg. Guar. Corp., 168 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…rrectness. [*550] See: Pitts v. Ahlswede, Fla.App. 1962, 139 So. 2d 159; City of Miami Beach v. Seacoast Towers-Miami Beach, Fla.App.1963, 156 So. 2d 528. It was incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate error. See: Lynch v. Coppola, Fla.App.1961, 129 So. 2d 183; Groover v. Simonhoff, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 541. If there is evidence in the record to support the findings of the chancellor they should not be disturbed. See: Davis v. Levin, Fla.App. 1962, 138 So. 2d 351; Lamb v. Dade County, Fla.App. 1964, 1…
-
Seiff v. Presto Brick Mach. Corp., 168 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…rrectness. See: Pitts v. Ahlswede, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 159; City of Miami Beach v. Seacoast Towers-Miami Beach, Inc., Fla.App. 1963, 156 So. 2d 528. It was incumbent upon the appellants to demonstrate error. See: Lynch v. Coppola, Fla.App.1961, 129 So. 2d 183; Groover v. Simonhoff, Fla. App.1963, 157 So. 2d 541. If the record contains evidence to support the final decree rendered by the chancellor, it should be affirmed. See: Davis v. Levin, Fla.App. 1962, 138 So. 2d 351; Lamb v. Dade County, Fla.App.196…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harmon v. Harmon, 40 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1949)
- Videon et ux. v. Hodge, 72 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1954)