OLEGARIO FERNANDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
ELENA SANTEIRO GARCIA DE FERNANDEZ, 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 sufficient evidence of extreme cruelty and no condonation, despite the husband's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of extreme cruelty, and the alleged acts were not condoned. The chancellor's decree is adequately supported by the evidence.
“In our opinion the evidence furnishes adequate support for the chancellor's decree.”
This quote establishes the appellate court's conclusion that the trial court's decision was supported by sufficient evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married in September 1963 and lived together for less than five months. In February 1964, the wife filed for divorce, alleging extrem…
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 Condonation cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal from a final decree of divorce, taken by the husband who was the defendant below, challenges sufficiency of the evidence and contends the acts relied on' as constituting extreme cruelty were condoned.
The parties were married September 14, 1963 in Dade County, and lived together less than five months. On February 28, 1964 the wife filed her complaint for divorce, charging extreme cruelty. The cause was heard by the chancellor who held the plaintiff had proved her alleged ground of extreme cruelty and granted plaintiff a divorce.
We have considered the contentions of the appellant in the light of the record and briefs and argument and conclude that they are without merit. In our opinion the evidence furnishes adequate support for the chancellor’s decree. See Greisen v. Grei-sen, 146 Fla. 94, 200 So. 523; Diem v. Diem, 141 Fla. 260, 193 So. 65; Fekany v. Fekany, 118 Fla. 698, 160 So. 192, 193. No useful purpose would be served by a detailed statement of the facts of the case as revealed in the evidence. The presumption of correctness which accompanies the decree has not been dispelled.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Diem v. Diem, 141 Fla. 260 (Fla. 1940)
- Fekany v. Fekany, 118 Fla. 698 (Fla. 1935)
- Greisen v. Maude H. Greisen, 146 Fla. 94 (Fla. 1941)