ELIZABETH K. S. DOWDA, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS BUTLER DOWDA, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the divorce judgment because the wife failed to demonstrate error in the trial court's findings.
The wife appealed a divorce judgment granted to the husband on grounds including habitual intemperance and extreme cruelty. The wife suffered a defaul…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Trial Court Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant wife has appealed a final judgment granting plaintiff husband a divorce on the ground of habitual intemperance, habitual indulgence in violent and ungovernable temper, and extreme cruelty. The sole point on appeal questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.
In our review of the issues presented for decision, we have given due consideration to the applicable principles that the judgment of a trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. Defendant suffered default judgment to be entered against her and offered no evidence upon the issues raised by the complaint. The record reveals substantial evidence to support the findings made and conclusions reached by the trial court on at least one if not all of the grounds for divorce alleged in the complaint.
It is not the province of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts. These findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court committed error or that the evidence establishes that the conclusions reached are erroneous.1 Appellant having failed to demonstrate error, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K, Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lauck v. Lauck, 247 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…ort the judgment upon the grounds of extreme cruelty. We find the statement of fact which has been used in lieu of a record to be sufficient to support the judgment. Windham v. Windham, 144 Fla. 563, 198 So. 202 (1940); Dowda v. Dowda, Fla.App.1969, 225 So. 2d 592. The second point urges that the trial judge erred in failing to apply the doctrine of recrimination and therefore denying the divorce. We hold that recrimination is not applicable as a matter of law to the facts of this case because the trial cour…
Authorities Cited
- OLD Equity Life Ins. Co. v. Franklyn Levenson, 177 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Stoller v. Jaffe, 125 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)