ISIDORE WEISMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
ADA WEISMAN, 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.
In this divorce appeal, a husband challenged a decree dividing marital property, arguing his wife fraudulently induced him to transfer real property to her by falsely promising reconciliation. The Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that fraud was not proven by clear and convincing evidence.
The court held that the trial court's finding that fraud was not proven is supported by the evidence, and the property transfer cannot be set aside. The mere failure of the parties to permanently re-establish their marriage is insufficient to establish fraud by clear and convincing evidence.
“Proof of fraud must be clear and convincing.”
Establishes the legal standard the husband must meet to set aside the property transfer
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant-husband and appellee-wife were persons of mature age who had separated multiple times during their marriage. After one reconciliation, t…
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 Waiver Of Appellate Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant-husband, defendant in the trial court, appeals a final decree of divorce and brings to this court only one point:
“Where a man’s wife consciously lies to him and fraudulently induces him to sign over real property to her on the promise that she will reform and become reconciled, is the husband to be stripped of all of his assets, including his business house, because the wife had fooled him earlier?”
Assignments of error going to any other matter in the record have therefore been waived since such assignments of error as are not argued in the briefs will be deemed abandoned. Rule 3.7, subd. i, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. See Chaachou v. Chaachou, Fla. 1961, 135 So.2d 206; Grand Union Super Markets, Inc. v. DeAquinos, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 754.
The record reveals that the appellant and the appellee are persons of mature age and have frequently found the marital road a rough one. In fact they have separated on no less than twelve occasions. After one reconciliation prior to this divorce, the husband transferred all of the property then held in his name into an estate by the entirety with his wife. This was done in order to induce his wife to return and give the marriage another try.
After the final separation, the husband filed a counterclaim to the wife’s complaint for divorce, praying for a divorce and for the court to set aside the transfer of the property made to effect the reconciliation. The relief concerning the real property was prayed on the basis of an allegation that the wife had procured the transfer by her fraudulent promise to be a good wife. Proof of fraud must be clear and convincing. Biscayne Boulevard Properties, Inc. v. Graham, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 858. Meyerson v. Boyce, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 488. Here the chancellor found that fraud was not proved.
The husband’s contention that the wife did not intend to make a bona fide *624reconciliation and thus fraudulently induced him to transfer his property is supported only by the fact that the parties did not succeed in permanently re-establishing their marriage. Under such circumstances we hold that the finding of the chancellor that fraud was not proved is supported by the evidence. Cf. Copeland v. Copeland, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 853.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lesperance v. Lesperance, 257 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…A notice of appeal was filed in the companion cases and the only point urged for reversal in the appellant’s brief [and therefore the only point preserved for review, Chaachou v. Chaachou, Fla.1961, 135 So. 2d 206; Weisman v. Weisman, Fla.App. 1962, 141 So. 2d 622; Central Bank and Trust Company v. Banner Trading Co., Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 201; Rule 3.7, subd. i, Florida Appellate Rules] 32 F.S.A. was the failure of the trial court to grant the motion to vacate the previous final judgment in the cancellati…
-
Oceania Joint Venture v. Ocean View OF Miami, Ltd., 707 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…t Sunny Isles, 519 So. 2d 641, 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); see also Morris v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 346 So. 2d 589, 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Okeelanta Sugar Refinery, Inc. v. Maxwell, 183 So. 2d 567, 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Weisman v. Weisman, 141 So. 2d 622, 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). We therefore must deny the petition. Petition denied. . This section provides that: The supreme court shall adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts including the time for seeking appellate review, the adm…
-
Janelle C. Cook v. Donnie R. Cook, 512 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…y reason until this proceeding was started some five years later. The pleading and proof was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the deeds from the husband to the wife were void for fraud in the inducement. See Weisman v. Weisman, 141 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). In addition to setting aside the above-mentioned conveyances, the trial court set aside three deeds from the wife to Hedge Highway Evangelistic Association and a mortgage given by the wife to Ward Gamaliel Hall, Sr., a bishop 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 intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Biscayne Boulevard Props., Inc. v. Graham, 65 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1953)
- Fredericka Phillips Chaachou v. Khudourie Chaachou, 135 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1961)
- In re Petition of David Krueger for Admission to The Florida Bar, 135 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1961)
- Meyerson v. Boyce, 97 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Grand Union Super Mkts., Inc. v. DE Aquinos, 135 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Copeland v. Copeland, 65 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1953)