JOYCE MUFSON, APPELLANT,
v.
RAYMOND MUFSON, 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 consolidated divorce appeal, Joyce Mufson challenges the trial court's grant of divorce to her husband Raymond, the division of marital property, and the awards of alimony and child support. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient corroboration of the grounds for divorce and no abuse of discretion in the financial awards.
The court held that the grounds for divorce were sufficiently established despite slight corroboration, the trial court's finding that condonation was not established was supported by substantial competent evidence, and the awards of alimony and child support were within the trial court's sound judicial discretion and supported by the evidence.
[1] Slight corroboration is sufficient to establish grounds for divorce in a contested case.
[2] A trial court's findings of fact in a divorce case, based on observation of the parties and testimony, will not be overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“in contested divorce cases there need only be slight corroboration with respect to the grounds for divorce”
Establishes the applicable standard for corroboration of divorce grounds, requiring only slight corroboration rather than substantial corroboration.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoyce Mufson was the defendant in a divorce action filed by her husband Raymond Mufson. Joyce filed a counterclaim for separate maintenance. The parti…
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 Condonation cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a consolidated appeal arising out of a contested divorce suit. Appellant Joyce Mufson was the defendant in an action for divorce brought by appellee Raymond Mufson. She filed a counterclaim for separate maintenance. She seeks review of a final judgment of divorce granted to her husband which, inter alia, divided joint property, and awarded alimony and child support for each of their four children; she also seeks review of an order correcting typographical errors in the final judgment.
The appellant contends: that her husband’s testimony as to the grounds for divorce was uncorroborated and therefore the trial court erred in granting her husband a divorce and denying her separate maintenance; that the court erred in granting her husband a divorce and denying her counterclaim for separate maintenance on the ground of condonation; and that the alimony of about $400.00 per month and a total of about $400.00 child support is insufficient.
Appellant’s argument that testimony to establish grounds for divorce was not corroborated is not supported by the record. We cannot agree with appellant that there was no corroboration, even though we find the corroboration to be slight.
Here the chancellor observed the parties and heard the testimony, so that his decision will not be overturned in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. Hillyard v. Hillyard, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 306, states that in contested divorce cases there need only be slight corroboration with respect to the grounds for divorce. The court in Hillyard, supra, as in the case sub judice, rejected the wife’s claim that error had been committed in granting the husband a divorce, where she had counterclaimed for support and maintenance, and the corroborative evidence was slight. In that case, as in this case, the suit was strongly and ably contested, and the evidence was conflicting. We therefore find that the grounds for divorce were sufficiently established.
As to condonation, again the evidence was conflicting. The trial judge as the trier of fact found that it had not been established. We cannot say that there was a lack of substantial, competent evidence to support his finding.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the award. We do not detail the parties’ finances and standard of living. Suffice it to say there was a conflict as to the needs of the wife and the ability of the husband to pay. The questions of whether alimony shall be awarded, and if so, how much shall be awarded rest within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor, and his determination will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. His decision comes to this court with a presumption of correctness, and the appellant’s burden is to establish that the decree was clearly erroneous. The chancel*112lor’s decision, which allowed alimony and set the child support at about $400.00 per month, with other provisions for their education, is supported by the evidence. See generally, Fishman v. Fishman, Fla.App. 1971, 245 So.2d 258.
We have considered all of appellant’s points on appeal and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated.
Therefore, the judgments appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rebia Gladys Sharpe v. Sharpe, 267 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…llate court will not interfere in the determination of the amount of alimony in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Singer v. Singer, Fla.App.1972, 3rd D.C.A., 262 So. 2d 731, filed May 30, 1972; Mufson v. Mufson, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 110; Tomaino v. Martz, Fla.App.1965, 170 So. 2d 468. However, we think that such a showing appears upon the undisputed facts of this record. Cf. Preston v. Preston, Fla. App.1968, 216 So. 2d 31; Massey v. Massey, Fla.App. 1967, 205 So. 2d 1; Klein v. Kl…
-
Lovie Royal v. Royal, 263 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…llate court will not interfere in the determination of the amount of alimony in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Singer v. Singer, Fla.App.1972, 3rd D.C.A., 262 So. 2d 731, filed May 30, 1972; Mufson v. Mufson, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 110; Tomaino v. Martz, Fla.App.1965, 170 So. 2d 468. However, we think that such a showing appears upon the undisputed facts of this record. Cf. Preston v. Preston, Fla.App.1968, 216 So. 2d 31; Massey v. Massey, Fla.App.1967, 205 So. 2d 1; Klein v. Klei…
-
Sapp v. Sapp, 275 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…Judgment will not be disturbed. We find that, therein, the Appellant failed to show the clear abuse of discretion which is necessary to overturn the presumption of correctness which accompanies the Chancellor’s Final Judgment, see Mufson v. Mufson, 245 So. 2d 110 (Fla.App.1971). Therefore, the specific award of alimony and child support rendered by the Chancellor below in his Final Judgment is hereby affirmed. However, the requirements contained in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Chancellor’s Final Judgment are o…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dores R. Fishman v. Fishman, 245 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Elisabeth P. Hillyard v. Hillyard, 212 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Fla. Nat'l Bank AT Lakeland v. Gulf Asphalt Corp., 212 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)