JERE O. HUXFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY LOUISE HUXFORD, 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.
A husband appeals a trial court's judgment granting his wife separate maintenance without divorce. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding substantial evidence supported the award and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the husband's motion for continuance.
The judgment was supported by substantial evidence and the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The trial court's conditional offer to continue the final hearing was fair, and the denial of the continuance motion due to the husband's refusal to agree to the condition did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
[1] A trial court's judgment is presumed correct on appeal and will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing of error or that the evidence demonstrates erroneous conc…
[2] An appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Our review of the record reveals substantial evidence supporting the issues raised by the pleadings on which the trial court based its findings and conclusions.”
Establishes that the trial court's judgment was supported by adequate evidence on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband and wife were involved in marital proceedings. The wife sought separate maintenance unconnected with divorce. The husband failed to testif…
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 Continuance Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant husband seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered in favor of his wife, appellee herein, by which she is granted separate maintenance unconnected with divorce.
The first two points on appeal question the sufficiency of the evidence to sup*869port the judgment awarding both temporary-alimony pendente lite and separate maintenance. Appellant failed to testify in his own behalf, nor did he adduce any evidence in opposition to the proof submitted by ap-pellee in support of her complaint. Our review of the record reveals substantial evidence supporting the issues raised by the pleadings on which the trial court based its findings and conclusions.
Appellant’s last point challenges the correctness of the trial court’s order denying his motion for a continuance of the final hearing because of his alleged physical and mental incapacity and inability to attend the hearing. It is our view that the trial court’s offer to continue the final hearing on the condition that appellant agree to stay all further proceedings in the divorce action brought by him against appellee in the State of Georgia until the conclusion of the case sub judice was eminently fair, and the court’s denial of appellant’s motion for continuance prompted by his refusal to agree to the condition imposed by the trial court did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
In our review of the issues presented for decision we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. 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 demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous.1 The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. Lopez, 689 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…DCA 1991). See also Moyer v. Moyer, 636 So. 2d 125, 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). If evidence exists that some severe harm or prejudice to the other party will occur by granting the motion, it is appropriate to deny it. See generally, Huxford v. Huxford, 231 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). But in this case, there was no showing that Carmen would have been harmed by a brief delay. The de facto denial of Carlos’ motion to continue was an abuse of discretion in this case due to Carlos’ mental and emotional problems…
-
Nudelman v. Waltraud Nudelman, 542 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ey’s fees not applicable “in every case” to award of fees pendente lite). Furthermore, the husband has failed to establish error in the amount of temporary fees assessed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979); Huxford v. Huxford, 231 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). The husband’s other points, including his contentions that the appellee’s notice of hearing did not properly refer to a motion for costs, as opposed to fees, and an alleged violation of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration…
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)