LOUIE L. STANLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNE L. STANLEY, 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 court affirmed the final decree of divorce and the denial of the wife's claimed equity in the family residence.
The husband appealed a final decree of divorce, arguing insufficient evidence and condonation. The wife cross-appealed the denial of her equity claim …
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
Appellant, defendant below, seeks reversal of a final decree of divorce upon the grounds, (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the decree, and (2) that the affirmative defense of condonation precludes the granting of relief to the plaintiff. Appellee filed a cross assignment of error seeking review of the chancellor’s decision denying her claimed equity in the family residence.
The evidence in the record was conflicting to a great extent. The chancellor is the judge of the facts, and his decision comes to this court “clothed with a presumption of correctness”. Southern National Bank of Fort Walton Beach v. Young, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 788. That decision will not be reversed if supported by substantial competent evidence. Anderson v. Anderson, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 360. Such evidence as will support this decree can be found in the record here before us.
Regarding the issue of condonation, this court has not retreated from its position in Seiferth v. Seiferth, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 471, which we reaffirmed in *614Pollak v. Pollak, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 771. We find the principles therein expressed to be eminently applicable here, and accordingly, we affirm.
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)…ally that Fred D. Latham accepted the policy in May of 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 substanti…
-
Albritton v. Albritton, 212 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…a. 705, 21 So. 2d 356; Mickler v. Mickler, Fla. App.1958, 101 So. 2d 157; 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce, Separation and Annulment, § 51. * *» This holding was followed in Pollak v. Pollak, Fla.App.1967, 196 So. 2d 771, and Stanley v. Stanley, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So. 2d 613. Here the disposition of plaintiff’s case given by the trial court was premature, since the element of a freely exercised intent to forgive was neither established nor negatived. Therefore, the appealed order must be reversed with directions to res…
Authorities Cited
- Jerri Pollak v. Pollak, 196 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 180 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- S. Nat'l Bank OF Fort Walton Beach v. Young, 142 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Seiferth v. Seiferth, 132 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)