EVERETT PARRAMORE AND WILLIE HOPKINS PARRAMORE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
JESSIE J. STOUTAMIRE, AND ANNIE STOUTAMIRE, HIS WIFE, AND IDE N. BLOUNT AND LOTTIE M. BLOUNT, HIS WIFE, 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.
In this title dispute, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's quiet title decree in favor of the plaintiffs, who claimed title through adverse possession and statutory limitations periods. The court held that the trial judge, sitting as chancellor in equity, did not abuse his discretion in resolving the complex factual issues and competing claims to the disputed land.
The appellate court affirmed the decree, holding that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion. Where a suit to quiet title is cognizable in equity and the chancellor sits as trier of fact, the appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for the chancellor's on factual questions; appellants bear the burden of demonstrating clear abuse of discretion.
“Since a suit to quiet title is a cause cognizable in equity, the chancellor sat as the trier of the facts, and this appellate court is not authorized to substitute our judgment for his on factual questions.”
Establishes the standard of review in equity cases: appellate court cannot substitute judgment on facts determined by the chancellor.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe disputed land is located on the east side of a fence on the described premises. The plaintiffs claimed title through adverse possession and operat…
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 Appellate Review Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants in a suit to quiet title have appealed from a supplementary final decree entered by the Circuit Court for Leon County, .declaring the title to certain lands to be in the plaintiffs.
The ultimate question presented for our determination in this appeal is whether that court abused its discretion in entering the said decree.
The land in controversy lies on the east side of a certain fence on the described premises. The plaintiffs claim the said land by virtue of adverse possession, together with the operation of various statutes of limitation and repose, and superior title otherwise, while the defendants claim record title arising out of a deed dated in 1860 and recorded in 1870, and also claim adverse possession and superior title otherwise.
It would serve no useful purpose and would unnecessarily extend this opinion if we were to set forth here the evidence (four volumes of the transcript of testimony and numerous exhibits) which formed the basis for the chancellor’s conclusions incorporated in his supplementary final decree. As an example of the difficult problems which the chancellor had to resolve in reaching his conclusions, he had to determine the intention of the parties in executing the deed mentioned above more than a century ago.
Since a suit to quiet title is a cause cognizable in equity, the chancellor sat as the trier of the facts, and this appellate court is not authorized to substitute our judgment for his on factual questions.
In this appeal the appellants have the burden of demonstrating that the chancellor clearly abused his judicial discretion in entering the said decree. We cannot find from the record before us that he abused his discretion, so the supplementary final decree appealed from herein must be and it is
Affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parramore v. Stoutamire, 210 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1968)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 202 So. 2d 832.…