ANNA BURNS
v.
ELMORE M. BURNS
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a divorce decree, finding sufficient evidence of extreme cruelty and temper. The court also upheld the denial of alimony and attorney's fees, deferring to the Chancellor's findings.
Yes, the evidence supported the divorce decree. No, the Chancellor did not err in refusing to award alimony and attorney's fees.
“We have examined the record and find ample support for the final decree on both points.”
Establishes the court's finding that the evidence supported the divorce decree.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnna Burns appealed a divorce decree granted to Elmore M. Burns on grounds of extreme cruelty and violent temper. She argued the evidence did not supp…
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 Probative Force cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final decree granting a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty and frequent indulgence in a violent and ungovernable temper.
It is contended here that the final decree should be reversed because the evidence does not support the finding of the Chancellor as to the equities of the cause or as to the grounds on which the divorce was claimed and granted. It is also urged that the Chancellor erred in refusing to decree attorneys’ fees and alimony for the Appellant.
We have examined the record and find ample support for the final decree on both points. This court will not reverse for a mere difference of opinion between counsel and the Chancellor as to what the evidence shows. It must be shown that the Chancellor was influenced by other consid*620erations or misconceived the probative force of the evidence.
Affirmed.
Buford, and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J„ concur in the opinion and judgment.