MARY JO SHARP, APPELLANT,
v.
HOWARD MURPHY SHARP AND BANK OF NAPLES, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 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 is a divorce appeal where the trial court dismissed both the plaintiff's complaint for divorce and the defendant's counterclaim on grounds that both parties lacked clean hands under equity doctrine. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding no error in the chancellor's factual findings and discretionary determinations.
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that no error was committed by the chancellor. The court found that the chancellor's factual findings and discretionary determinations were entitled to a presumption of correctness, and that the presumption had not been overcome.
“It is a well-settled rule that the chancellor is the trier of facts; that the weight of credibility to be given the evidence is within the discretion of the chancellor; that it is his duty and responsibility to discern which of the evidence to believe and which to disbelieve; and that his discretion is clothed with a presumption of correctness.”
Establishes the standard of appellate review in equity cases, giving substantial deference to trial judge's factual findings and credibility determinations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Mary Jo Sharp filed for divorce against defendant Howard Murphy Sharp, alleging that the defendant had physically abused her on several occa…
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 Suit For Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, plaintiff below, appeals from a final decree entered by the chancellor as result of a suit for divorce filed by the plaintiff against appellee, Howard Murphy Sharp, defendant below.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleged, among other things, that defendant had on several occasions and without provocation physically abused her. Defendant counterclaimed and charged plaintiff with committing adultery on several occasions. Voluminous testimony and depositions were taken at the conclusion of which the chancellor entered a final order of dismissal, stating that both parties had failed to malee affirmative showing of sufficient equity on their own behalf or a lack of such equity in the other party as to entitle them to relief in a court of equity, and that the doctrine of clean hands barred each of them from such relief. Plaintiff’s complaint and defendant’s counterclaim were dismissed with prejudice.
We have meticulously examined the entire record including the testimony and depositions and find no error committed by the chancellor. It is a well-settled rule that the chancellor is the trier of facts; that *509the weight of credibility to be given the evidence is within the discretion of the chancellor; that it is his duty and responsibility to discern which of the evidence to believe and which to disbelieve; and that his discretion is clothed with a presumption of correctness. We do not believe this presumption has been overcome in the instant case and for these reasons the decree is affirmed. Bagwell v. Bagwell, 153 Fla. 471, 14 So.2d 841 (1943); Grossman v. Grossman, 90 So.2d 115 (Fla.1956); Clutter v. Clutter, 171 So.2d 544 (D.C.A.Fla.1965).
LILES, Acting C. J, PIERCE, J., and FLYNN, ROGER D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marsh v. Laurel J. Ising Marsh, 419 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1982)…ous bias and the witnesses’ credibility is naturally in question. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight given their testimony, however, is a question for the trial court. Mirras v. Mirras, 202 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Sharp v. Sharp, 185 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Findings of fact by a trial court are presumed to be correct and are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict. Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1976). When, as here, the grantor’s intent is to be determined from th…
-
Mercier v. Mercier, 200 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…ct, the chancellor has the responsibility of determining the weight, credibility and sufficiency of the evidence. These findings are clothed with a presumption of correctness. Clutter v. Clutter, 171 So. 2d 544, 545 (D.C.A.Fla.1965); Sharp v. Sharp, 185 So. 2d 508 (D.C.A.Fla.1966). No abuse of discretion having been shown, this presumption has not been overcome in the instant case. For this reason, the decree is affirmed. LILES, Acting C. J., PIERCE, J., and OVERSTREET, MURRAY W., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
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.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bagwell v. Bagwell, 153 Fla. 471 (Fla. 1943)
- Grossman v. Grossman, 90 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1956)
- Clutter v. Clutter, 171 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)