MARY A. BORNSTEIN, APPELLANT,
v.
BURTON BORNSTEIN, 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 divorce appeal, the trial court found both parties guilty of marital misconduct but granted the defendant-appellee a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty, awarding the plaintiff-appellant $3,000 in property division and $500 in attorney's fees, both payable in installments. The appellate court affirmed, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's credibility determinations or discretionary rulings.
The trial court's judgment of divorce was affirmed. The trial judge's credibility determinations regarding the weight of evidence were entitled to deference, there was no abuse of discretion in permitting installment payments, and the record was insufficient to determine the privilege issue.
“We are of the opinion that all of the points raised concerning weight of the evidence really present a question of credibility of which the trial judge, as the trier of the fact, was entitled to make such determination as he saw fit.”
Establishes the standard of review that credibility and weight-of-evidence determinations rest within the trial judge's discretion and are not disturbed on appeal if supported by sufficient evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was the plaintiff in a divorce action against the appellee. The appellant alleged the appellee's habitual use of narcotics, cruelty, adu…
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
Affirmed.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of divorce. Appellant was plaintiff below, and appellee was defendant below. Suit went to trial on appellant’s amended complaint on the grounds of habitual use of narcotics by the appellee and specific grounds of cruelty, adultery, and habitual indulgence in a violent and ungovernable temper. Defendant-appellee counterclaimed for divorce, charging cruelty and adultery. The trial court found both parties guilty of marital misconduct, but found that appellee was entitled to divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty and entered a judgment therefor, denying alimony but awarding to appellant Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.-00) for her interest in the joint property of the parties, to be paid in monthly installments of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) per month. The appellant was likewise awarded an attorney’s fee of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) to be paid in two (2) additional Two Hundred Fifty Dollar ($250.00) monthly installments.
Appellant has filed thirteen (13) assignments of error, which can be compressed into the seven (7) points on appeal mentioned in appellant’s brief. Points I, II, III, IV, and VI concern the weight of the evidence; Point V challenges the trial judge’s discretion in allowing installment payments; and Point VII raises the question of privilege under F.S.1967, Section 398.17, F.S.A.
We are of the opinion that all of the points raised concerning weight of the evidence really present a question of credibility of which the trial judge, as the trier of the fact, was entitled to make such determination as he saw fit. While we might not agree with this determination if we were the triers of the fact, there is sufficient evidence in the record to permit the trial judge to find as he did, and his findings shall not be disturbed.
There is no abuse of discretion, upon the state of this record, in permitting the sum awarded to the appellant to be paid in installments.
In the present state of the record, we are not in a position to determine whether the challenged testimony was privileged or not, under the Florida Statutes.
The record and briefs have been carefully considered, and no reversible error is found.
WALDEN, C. J., OWEN, J., and VANN, HAROLD R., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
U. S. Y. & T. Indus., Inc. v. Charolais Herds & Ranches, Inc., 367 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…court is supported by sufficient competent, substantial evidence. See Strawgate and Higier v. Turner (1976, Fla.S.Ct.) 339 So. 2d 1112; Ross v. Florida Sun Life Ins. Co. (1960, Fla.App. D2) 124 So. 2d 892; Bornstein v. Bornstein (1968, Fla.App. D4) 215 So. 2d 60; Lowery v. Rosenberg (1962, Fla.App. Dl) 147 So. 2d 321, cert, denied (Fla.S.Ct.) 153 So. 2d 306; Bali, Inc. v. Sherwood’s Commercial Brokers, Inc. (1975, Fla. App. Dl) 326 So. 2d 21; Duncanson v. Service First, Inc. (1963, Fla.App. D3) 157 So. 2d 6…