BETH G. JESSEN
v.
ROBERT A. JESSEN
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, holding that the trial court's decision was supported by the evidence and that appellate courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the chancellor without a clear showing of error.
The evidence was sufficient to support the chancellor's decree, and there was no clear error in the chancellor's rulings. Appellate courts are not authorized to substitute their judgment for that of the chancellor when the evidence is conflicting.
“The record and the briefs have been examined and the evidence found to be conflicting.”
Establishes the appellate court's review of the evidence and its finding of conflict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves an appeal from a final divorce decree granted to the appellee. The appellant raised four grounds for reversal, primarily concerning …
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 Appellate Review Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final decree granting the appellee a divorce from appellant. Four questions are urged as grounds for reversal. They all go to the sufficiency of the evidence or rulings on matters in which the chancellor was vested with a liberal discretion. The *671record and the briefs have been examined and the evidence found to be conflicting. The chancellor was confronted with a bad situation and on the record we find no basis to reverse his judgment. To do so would be nothing more than pitting our judgment against his which we are not authorized to do. There must be a clear showing that he committed error.
Affirmed.
Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Whitfield and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Order on Petition for Rehearing
This cause coming on to be heard on petition for rehearing, the record and the petition have been examined, and is hereby denied except as to attorneys’ fees incurred in this Court. It appears that the motion for attorneys’ fees was filed May 10, 1939, and is granted in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Dollars.
It is so ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J, concur.
Order on Petition for Rehearing
Per Curiam. —
This cause coming on to be heard on petition for rehearing, the record and the petition have been examined, and is hereby denied except as to attorneys’ fees incurred in this Court. It appears that the motion for attorneys’ fees was filed May 10, 1939, and is granted in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Dollars.
It is so ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Windham v. Windham, 144 Fla. 563 (Fla. 1940)…equity as to the correctness of the ruling of the lower court and the burden here was on the appellant to show that error had been committed. We fail to find an abuse of discretion. See Durham v. Durham, 137 Fla. 506, 188 So. 609; Jessen v. Jessen, 140 Fla. 670, 191 So. 768. It is next contended that there is no testimony in the record to support that portion of the final decree in holding that the plaintiff and the defendant were tenants in common each of an undivided one-half interest of the property ac…