JOHN S. GAISFORD AND LUCY GAISFORD, APPELLANTS,
v.
LUCILLE FROSTMAN ET AL., 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.
The appellate court affirmed a trial court's judgment awarding a real estate commission, holding that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the trial court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous.
No, the appellants failed to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded to the trial court's findings. The appellate court found no basis to disturb the trial judge's determination.
“As the trier of fact the trial judge has the responsibility of determining the weight, credibility and sufficiency of the evidence, and these findings are clothed with the presumption of correctness.”
This quote establishes the standard of review for findings of fact made by a trial judge in a non-jury trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants, defendants in the trial court, appealed a final judgment entered after a non-jury trial. The trial court awarded the appellee, plainti…
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 Real Estate Commission Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants (defendants), John S. Gais-ford and Lucy Gaisford, appeal from a final judgment entered pursuant to a non-jury trial awarding appellee (plaintiff), Lucille Frostman, a real estate commission.
Appellants’ primary thrust on appeal is that the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the trial judge are clearly erroneous and manifestly against the weight and effect of the evidence.
As the trier of fact the trial judge has the responsibility of determining the weight, credibility and sufficiency of the evidence, and these findings are clothed with the presumption of correctness. Dade Engineering & Construction Co. v. D’Amato, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 627; Bass v. Bass, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 346. The court’s findings are entitled to the weight of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed unless .it is shown that there is a total lack of substantial evidence to support these conclusions. LaFrance Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. Argenio, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d, 330; Chakford v. Strum, Fla. 1956, 87 So.2d 419.
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 the appellants have failed to overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial court’s finding.
Affirmed.
ANDREWS and CROSS, JJ., and WILLIAMS, O. EDGAR, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lonergan v. Est. OF Ethel L. Budahazi, 669 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…correct and are to be given the same weight as a jury verdict. Parson v. Hendley, 416 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 426 So. 2d 27 (Fla.1983); Gruman v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 379 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Gaisford v. Frostman, 202 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), cert. denied, 211 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1968). Because it is the trial court who has the firsthand opportunity to hear and observe the witnesses as they testify, the trial court is in a superior position to weigh the evidence and cred…
-
In the Estate OF Arlethia Parson v. Hendley, 416 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…253 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1971), involving the presumption of undue influence. We have consistently held that findings of fact by the trial judge will be presumed to be correct and are to be given the same weight as a jury verdict. Gaisford v. Frostman, 202 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). This proposition is based upon the logical premise that it is the function of the trial court to judge the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses based upon his direct observation, and this court will not su…
-
Benedict v. Dade Cnty. Realty, Inc., 274 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…1. The trial judge sitting as the trier of facts has the responsibility of determining the weight, credibility and sufficiency of the evidence, and these findings are clothed with the presumption of correctness. Gaisford v. Frostman, Fla.App. 1967, 202 So. 2d 790; Heredia v. Industrial Supplies, Inc., of Florida, Fla.App.1972, 265 So. 2d 709; Imperial Lumber Co. v. Knowles, Fla.App.1972, 267 So. 2d 53; Hayes v. Williams, Fla.App.1972, 271 So. 2d 200. The court’s findings are entitled to the weight of a jury…
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
- Am. Cont'l Inv., Inc. v. Borofsky, 87 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1956)
- Dade Eng'g & Constr. Co., Inc. v. D'Amato, 108 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- LaFRANCE Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. Argenio, 147 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- State of Fla. on the relation of Joseph B. Sidman & Jack P. Bluestein v. Fink, 147 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Baker v. State, 188 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Bass v. Bass, 188 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)