WILLIAM W. CONRAD, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT L. LARSON, 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 lower court's decision denying specific performance of a land purchase contract. The court found no error in the trial judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law, which were supported by competent substantial evidence.
No, the chancellor did not err in denying specific performance. The trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were supported by competent substantial evidence and are presumed correct.
“It is a well established rule of law that the chancellor's findings of fact and conclusions of law come to the appellant court with a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.”
Establishes the standard of review for the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, William W. Conrad, sought specific performance of a land purchase contract. The trial court denied this request. The plaintiff appealed…
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 Specific Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff (appellant), William W. Conrad, appeals from a final order denying the plaintiff specific performance of a land purchase contract.
The sole question on appeal is whether the chancellor erred in denying specific performance as prayed for by the plaintiff.
It is a well established rule of law that the chancellor’s findings of fact and conclusions of law come to the appellant court with a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. Pokress v. Josephart, Fla.App.1963, 152 So.2d 756; Bittner v. Walsh, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 799; Clausi v. Casner Motors, Inc., Fla.App. 1959, 112 So.2d 587.
The court having had the benefit of oral argument and having considered the same, carefully examined and considered the record on appeal, the briefs and the points raised, finds that there is competent substantial evidence to support the findings of fact and the conclusions of law of the trial judge and that the appellant has failed to overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial court’s findings.
Accordingly, the final order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., CROSS, J., and LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henry F. Hill in Bankr. for Dade Plumbing, Inc. v. Coplan Pipe & Supply Co., Inc., 296 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…late court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and this court should not disturb the trial court’s findings absent a showing that they are clearly erroneous. Pokress v. Josephart, Fla.App.1963, 152 So. 2d 756; Conrad v. Larson, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So. 2d 806; Eldredge v. Pettingill, Fla.App. 1973, 275 So. 2d 266. Our examination of the record reveals that there is substantial competent evidence in support of the trial court’s determination. We also have considered the third point advanced by the appel…
Authorities Cited
- Bittner v. Walsh, 132 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Clausi v. Casner Motors, Inc., 112 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Pokress v. Josephart, 152 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)