FRANK PHILIP TAGLIARINI, APPELLANT,
v.
EVELYN FRANCES TAGLIARINI, 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.
In this interlocutory appeal from a custody modification denial, the court affirmed the chancellor's order denying the father's motion to change custody of the parties' two minor sons. The court applied the substantial evidence standard of review, holding that because the record contained competent evidence supporting the chancellor's decision, reversal was not warranted despite the appellate panel's potential different ruling.
The court affirmed the chancellor's order denying the motion for change of custody because the record on appeal contains substantial competent evidence supporting the chancellor's decision and the appellant failed to demonstrate the order was clearly erroneous.
“The decision of the chancellor carries with it the presumption of correctness on appellate review where, as here, the evidence and the witnesses were before him.”
Establishes the standard of review for custody decisions—that the chancellor's order is presumed correct when the trial judge heard the evidence directly.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank Philip Tagliarini and Evelyn Frances Tagliarini are parents of two minor sons. Custody of the children was awarded to the mother in a final divo…
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 Change Of Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant takes an interlocutory appeal from an order of the chancellor below denying his motion for change of custody.
The parties hereto are the parents of two minor sons whose custody was granted to the appellee in a final decree of divorce entered on January 29, 1965.
The chancellor below, on the appellant’s motion for change of custody, held two days of hearings which consists of some 312 pages of testimony.
While we might not have ruled the same as the chancellor had we been in his position, we nevertheless must affirm his order because the record-on-appeal contains substantial competent. evidence to support the chancellor’s order herein appealed.
In Bennett v. Bennett, Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 588, this court, in following a long line of authority, on pages 589-590, stated as follows:
“The decision of the chancellor carries with it the presumption of correctness on appellate review where, as here, the evidence and the witnesses were before him. Joyner v. Andrews, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 870, 872. It is incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate that the decree appealed was clearly erroneous. Cowen v. Cowen, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 584; Tyler v. Tyler, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 312; Cole v. Cole, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 126. If the record contains substantial evidence to support the chancellor’s *11decree, we must uphold it even though we might have decided differently had we been in the chancellor’s position. Bruggisser v. Bruggisser, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 654; Brenner v. Smullian, Fla. 1956, 84 So.2d 44,49.”
In view of the fact that the appellant has not demonstrated that the chancellor’s order is clearly erroneous and further that the record-on-appeal contains competent substantial evidence to support such order, we must affirm.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and ALLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anderson v. Anderson, 289 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…and, although we might have made an initial ruling different from that of the chancellor, if there is evidence in the record to support his decision we are not authorized to find that he abused his discretion. Tagliarini v. Tagliarini, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 10; Ebaugh v. Ebaugh, Fla.App.1973, 282 So. 2d 14. The present status of the statutory law in this State is that the parents are to be treated equal in considering custody. § 61.13(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. This court has recognized this rule in Cardillo v…
-
Ebaugh v. Ebaugh, 282 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…e child with one parent as opposed to the other, it is the duty of the appellant court to uphold such determination notwithstanding that the appellate court might have decided the issue of custody differently. Tagliarini v. Tagliarini, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 10. The record in the case sub judice reflects that the chancellor’s order is supported by competent substantial evidence and the appellant has failed to demonstrate that such order is [*15] clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the final judgment must be A…
Authorities Cited
- Cole v. Cole, 130 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Isabel M. Cowen (Papert) v. Cowen, 95 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 1957)
- Bennett v. Lysle A. Bennett, 146 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Al Brenner v. Smullian, 84 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1955)
- Tyler v. Tyler, 108 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Joyner v. Andrews, 137 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Bruggisser v. Bruggisser, 133 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)