HUGH A. WILSON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
EDITH W. WILSON, 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.
Hugh Wilson appealed from a final divorce decree denying his request for divorce but granting his wife's counterclaim for alimony unconnected with divorce. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the chancellor's findings were supported by the evidence and applying the well-established Florida rule that appellate courts do not re-weigh evidence or substitute their judgment for the trial judge's.
The appellate court held that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion and that his findings were supported by the evidence. The court affirmed the final decree in all respects, finding that despite some conflicts in the evidence, the chancellor's conclusions were reasonably supported by the record.
“where the evidence reasonably supports the findings of the chancellor, his conclusions thereon will not be disturbed”
Establishes the foundational appellate standard of review for equity cases in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff-husband sought a divorce in the Circuit Court for Columbia County. The defendant-wife filed a counterclaim seeking alimony unconnected w…
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 Alimony Unconnected With Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff-husband in a divorce suit has appealed from a final decree entered by the Circuit Court for Columbia County denying the plaintiff’s prayer for divorce but granting the defendant-wife’s counterclaim for alimony unconnected with divorce.
The basic question presented for our determination in this appeal is whether the chancellor abused his judicial discretion in entering the said decree.
Such determination depends upon the legal sufficiency of the evidence adduced by the parties before the chancellor. As an appellate court we are not authorized to re-weight that evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the chancellor, who sat as the trier of the facts.
In an analogous situation in Cole v. Cole, Fla.App., 130 So.2d 126 (1961) we thus expressed the reasoning underlying the above rule:
“The oft-stated and long-established rule in Florida is that on the appeal of an equity suit, ‘where the evidence reasonably supports the findings of the chancellor, his conclusions thereon will not be disturbed.’ Phifer v. Phifer, 1936, 124 Fla. 223, 168 So. 9, 10. See also Baker v. Baker, 1927, 94 Fla. 1001, 114 So. 661; Welch v. Welch, 1933, 112 Fla. 590, 152 So. 173, and Stoneburg v. Stoneburg, 1935, 120 Fla. 188, 162 So. 334. In justifying his rule with the goal of the courts to ascertain the truth, it is sometimes pointed out that in an equity suit the chancellor, like a jury in an action at law, is the trier of the facts and as such hgs heard the testimony of the witnesses and observed their demeanor and conduct, elements which may affect the degree of credibility which should be accorded to their testimony, so surely the chancellor is in a better position to arrive at true findings of fact than appellate judges, who are confined in their consideration to the ‘cold’ typewritten transcript prepared by a stenographer.”
Applying the just-quoted rule to the case on appeal, we have examined the evi*733dence before the chancellor and are of the opinion that the evidence, despite some conflicts therein, reasonably supports the findings and conclusions set forth in his decree, on which he held that the equities were with the defendant, that the defendant was entitled to alimony in the amount of $750 per month unconnected with divorce.
It would serve no useful purpose to detail here the voluminous evidence before the chancellor. We have considered the other points raised by the appellant in this appeal and find that they lack substantial merit.
Therefore, the final decree appealed from herein must be and it is
Affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wiener v. Seymour James Wiener, 343 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…bstantial, competent evidence in the record to support the chancellor’s finding that there was an oral modification agreement and, therefore, this finding should not be disturbed. Cole v. Cole, 130 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st D.C.A.1961); Wilson v. Wilson, 210 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st D.C.A.1968); Patterson v. Patterson, 214 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1968). Secondly, even though the written agreement had a provision that provided it could not be modified except by subsequent written agreement, the parties by their act…
-
Am. Realequities, Ltd. v. ALM Inv. Corp., 406 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…. Therefore, finding evidence to support the trial court’s determination that the sale was in gross it will not be disturbed. Manufacturers National Bank of Hialeah v. Canmont International, Inc., 322 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Wilson v. Wilson, 210 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968); Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Latham, 207 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); M. D. Barrineau v. B&F Auto Parts, Inc., 191 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). We reverse the remainder of the final judgment, with directions a…
-
Sibert Dewayne Rains v. Katharine Belle Rains, 220 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…REED, Judge. Affirmed on the authority of Shirley v. Lake Butler Corporation, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 267; Wilson v. Wilson, Fla.App. 1968, 210 So. 2d 732; Sharp v. Sharp, Fla. App.1966, 185 So. 2d 508; and Lauray v. Lauray, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 670. CROSS, J., and KELLY, RICHARD, Associate Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baker v. Baker, 94 Fla. 1001 (Fla. 1927)
- Cole v. Cole, 130 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Phifer v. Vannie L. Phifer, 124 Fla. 223 (Fla. 1936)
- Stoneburg v. Stoneburg, 120 Fla. 188 (Fla. 1935)
- Welch v. Welch, 112 Fla. 590 (Fla. 1933)
- McKell v. Jackson, 120 Fla. 185 (Fla. 1935)
- Zenas B. Davis v. Albertson, 112 Fla. 237 (Fla. 1933)