MARY HIGGINS LAURAY, APPELLANT,
v.
DANIEL LEON LAURAY, 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 divorce decree where the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. The court emphasized that it would not substitute its judgment for the chancellor's unless there was a clear abuse of discretion or a complete lack of proof.
No, the appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the chancellor's findings and rulings, and no abuse of discretion was evident.
“This court will not substitute its judgment for that of the chancellor in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the chancellor or a complete absence of proof to support the chancellor's decision.”
Establishes the standard of review for decisions made by a chancellor, emphasizing deference to the trial court's findings.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was awarded custody of the children, the home, and monetary payments, while the appellee was granted a divorce. The testimony was confli…
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 Child Custody Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce wherein the appellant was awarded the custody of the children, the home and certain monetary payments for alimony and support, and the appellee was awarded a divorce. The testimony was conflicting and corroboration not the best, but the chancellor weighed all the evidence, observed all the witnesses and particularly the parties plaintiff and defendant, and frankly stated in his final decree the weaknesses in both plaintiff’s case and defendant’s prosecution of her counterclaim, but found that the plaintiff had proved the allegations of his complaint for divorce by a preponderance of the evidence and therefore granted the prayer for divorce; but in the exercise of his judicial discretion awarded the custody of the children to the defendant and made reasonable provisions for their support and maintenance. This court will not substitute its judgment for that of the chancellor in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the chancellor or a complete absence of proof to support the chancellor’s decision.
We find there was evidence to support the chancellor’s findings and rulings and fail to find any abuse of discretion. Therefore the decree appealed is
Affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and STURGIS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lovett v. Lovett, 194 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…was in conflict on all of these issues. Since the appellant has failed to clearly show that the chancellor abused his discretion, the decree appealed from is affirmed. Frazier v. Frazier, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 865; Lauray v. Lauray, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 670; and Clutter v. Clutter, Fla.App.1965, 171 So. 2d 544. The appellant’s attorney has petitioned this court for attorney fees for services rendered before this court, which we grant in the sum of Three Hundred ($300.-00) Dollars. LILES, J., and LEAV…
-
Sibert Dewayne Rains v. Katharine Belle Rains, 220 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…REED, Judge. Affirmed on the authority of Shirley v. Lake Butler Corporation, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 267; Wilson v. Wilson, Fla.App. 1968, 210 So. 2d 732; Sharp v. Sharp, Fla. App.1966, 185 So. 2d 508; and Lauray v. Lauray, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 670. CROSS, J., and KELLY, RICHARD, Associate Judge, concur.…