KATHLEEN SCHIFFMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
JACK SCHIFFMAN, 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 the trial court's final divorce decree because the parties failed to demonstrate clear error.
A wife was granted a divorce from her husband on the grounds of desertion. The final decree awarded the wife alimony, child support for four children,…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Trial Court Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final decree in which the defendant counter-plaintiff wife, Kathleen Schiffman, was granted a divorce from the plaintiff, counter-defendant husband, Jack Schiffman, on the ground of desertion.
In its final decree, the court ordered the husband to pay to the wife the sum of $350.00 per month alimony and $75.00 per month per child for child support. The wife was granted custody of the parties’ four children. The husband was also ordered to pay to the wife the sum of $5,000.00 in satisfaction of property rights and to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees in the sum of $3,500.00.
On appeal, the wife contends that the award in satisfaction of property rights, and the amounts awarded for alimony and child support are inadequate. On cross-appeal, the husband contends that the wife should not have been awarded anything for property rights; that the wife should have been ordered to convey to the husband all property standing in her name alone or by the entireties, and, that the amounts awarded for alimony and attorney’s fees are excessive.
The order of the chancellor comes to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness, and the burden rests on the party seeking reversal to clearly demonstrate error. Southern National Bank of Fort Walton Beach v. Young, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 788. The parties have failed to clearly demonstrate error and, therefore, the decree appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Latham, 207 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…1966. This finding comes to this court carrying a presumption of correctness, and the burden falls upon the party seeking reversal to clearly demonstrate error. Stanley v. Stanley, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 613; Schiffman v. Schiffman, Fla.App.1967, 200 So. 2d 646; Southern National Bank of Fort Walton Beach v. Young, Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 788. The finding is entitled to the weight of a jury verdict. It will not be disturbed where supported by substantial competent evidence, Stanley v. Stanley, supra; Ains…
-
AAA Auto Leasing, Inc. v. Morse Taxi & Baggage Transfer, Inc., 204 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…been made to appear in permitting the intervention. Hawkins v. Perry, 146 Fla. 766, 1 So. 2d 620; Arsenault v. Thomas, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 120; City of Miami v. Bus Benches Co., Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 49; Schiffman v. Schiffman, Fla.App.1967, 200 So. 2d 646. Therefore, the order here under review is hereby affirmed. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- S. Nat'l Bank OF Fort Walton Beach v. Young, 142 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)