CHERYL PEACOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
JERRY E. PEACOCK, 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.
Cheryl Peacock appealed a divorce decree granted to her husband on grounds of cruelty. The appellate court affirmed the decree, finding that the trial judge's findings were supported by substantial and competent evidence and that the appellant failed to demonstrate clear error.
The court affirmed the divorce decree, holding that the trial judge's findings were supported by substantial and competent evidence and that the appellant failed to clearly demonstrate error or abuse of discretion.
“In reviewing a judgment rendered in a nonjury case it is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge.”
Establishes the standard of review for nonjury trials—appellate courts defer to trial judge's findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCheryl Peacock instituted divorce proceedings against her husband while he was stationed on a U.S. Navy ship. When he returned home on leave, she refu…
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 Cruelty cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff has appealed a final decree granting to her defendant husband a divorce on the ground of cruelty alleged in his counterclaim. Her assault is confined exclusively to the contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the findings and conclusions of the chancellor upon which the decree is premised.
At the time of final hearing plaintiff abandoned her complaint seeking a divorce and advised her attorney that she would not appear at the final hearing, nor would she offer any evidence in support of her answer to the counterclaim filed by defendant. The only testimony and evidence before the court was that adduced by defendant in support of the cause of action alleged in his counterclaim.
From a review of the record it affirmatively appears that while defendant was a member of the armed forces of this country and stationed on a United States Navy ship, plaintiff instituted this action for divorce against him. Shortly thereafter he returned home on leave but plaintiff, then residing with her parents, not only refused to see him but refused to permit him to see and visit their child who was born during his absence. He remained home on leave for a period of some twenty days and through telephone conversations attempted on many occasions to see his wife and child, but in each instance was rebuffed. There was testimony as to the effect such actions on the part of plaintiff had on the physical and mental well-being of defendant. Upon this evidence the chancellor concluded that the allegations of cruelty by plaintiff to defendant had been sufficiently established, and upon such conclusion granted the decree of divorce.
In reviewing a judgment rendered in a nonjury case it is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge.1 If the findings of the court are supported by substantial and competent evidence, the conclusions based thereon will not be set aside unless appellant clearly demonstrates that substantial error was committed or that the conclu*294sions are erroneous under the evidence.2 Where the evidence is heard by the trial judge and the witnesses are before him, his findings are accorded great weight and should not be disturbed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion.3
Appellant having failed to clearly demonstrate error, the decree appealed is affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jacquin-Florida Distilling Co. v. Reynolds, 319 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…nflicting evidence supporting appellant’s position. Richards v. Dodge, 150 So. 2d 477 (Fla.App. 2nd, 1963); Coble v. Agnew, 128 So. 2d 158 (Fla.App. 2nd, 1969); Pergament v. Pergament, 117 So. 2d 26 (Fla.App. 2nd, 1960). See also Peacock v. Peacock, 207 So. 2d 292 (Fla.App. 1st, 1968). Resolving these conflicts favorably to the position urged in support of the judgment below, we must presume that the trial court found on substantial evidence that, after initial misconceptions by both RS&H and Jacquin of the…
-
Gonzalez v. Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., 230 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…for the insurance company. We have reviewed the conflicting testimony and evidence and find substantial and competent evidence to support the findings of fact and the conclusions of law based on these findings. See Peacock v. Peacock, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 292. The final judgment herein appealed is Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Cherney v. Cherney, 146 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Hieber v. Hieber, 151 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Bargeon v. Bargeon, 153 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)