ANTHONY ISIDORO, APPELLANT,
v.
TALIA ISIDORO, 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 affirmed a divorce decree, finding no reversible error in the lower court's division of property, child custody award, or award of costs and attorney's fees. The husband, who appealed the decree, failed to demonstrate that the chancellor misapplied the law or misunderstood the evidence.
No, the appellate court found no reversible error in the chancellor's decisions regarding property division, child custody, or the award of costs and attorney's fees.
“we conclude that the appellant has failed to. sustain his burden to demonstrate reversible error”
Establishes the appellate court's finding that the appellant did not prove the lower court made an error.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband, plaintiff in the divorce action, was granted a final decree of divorce on the grounds of adultery. The chancellor found the parties' equi…
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 Attorney'S Fees In Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant husband, plaintiff below, was granted a final decree of divorce on the ground of adultery wherein the chancellor found, inter alia, that the equities of the parties in jointly held property, and property previously jointly held, were approximately equal. He seeks review of those portions of the final decree ordering him to convey his interest in the family home and one of two automobiles to the appellee, granting custody of the parties’ minor child to the appellee, and awarding the appellee costs and attorney’s fees.
Having reviewed the record, examined the briefs, and heard oral argument, we conclude that the appellant has failed to. sustain his burden to demonstrate reversible error, Robinson v. Foland, Fla.App. 1960, 124 So.2d 512; Farina v. Farina, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 485, in that he has failed to show that the chancellor misapplied a settled rule of law or misapprehended the legal effect of the evidence as a whole in arriving at his conclusions of law and fact. Grossman v. Grossman, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 115; McDade v. McDade, 107 Fla. 552, 146 So. 228.
Accordingly, the final decree appealed is affirmed.
CARROLL, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Grossman v. Grossman, 90 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1956)
- Robinson v. Foland, 124 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- James v. Campbell, 124 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- McDade v. McDade, 107 Fla. 552 (Fla. 1933)
- Farina v. Farina, 97 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)