MILDRED CHIASSON STRATE, APPELLANT,
v.
ZACHARY A. STRATE, JR., ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Mildred Chiasson Strate appealed a final judgment awarding Cal Koven $60,000 plus interest and costs on his counterclaim for slander of title to real property. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial court's proceedings.
The appellate court affirmed the final judgment and order of the trial court. No reversible error was demonstrated by the appellant.
[1] A final judgment or order of the trial court comes to an appellate court with a presumption of correctness.
[2] The party asserting error on appeal bears the burden of demonstrating reversible error.
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“A firmly established maxim is that a final judgment or order of the trial court comes to this court on appeal clothed with a presumption of correctness and the one who asserts error has the burden of showing it.”
Establishes the standard of review and burden of proof on appeal—the appellant must clearly demonstrate reversible error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed a complaint on January 22, 1973, seeking to recover certain property pursuant to a Louisiana divorce decree and settlement, naming Cal…
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 On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, plaintiff and counterdefendant below, appeals a final judgment and order of the trial court awarding appellee Cal Koven, defendant and counterplaintiff below, $60,000 plus interest and costs on his counterclaim for slander of title to real property and denying appellant’s motions for a new trial or a judgment n.o.v. On January 22, 1973, appellant filed a complaint in the trial court seeking, inter alia, to recover certain property allegedly hers pursuant to a Louisiana divorce decree and settlement. Among the several persons named as defendants was appellee, Cal Koven. On February 9, 1973, appellee Koven filed an answer and counterclaim for slander of title to real property. Ap-pellee Koven’s counterclaim was basically predicated upon appellant’s alleged wrongful filings, both before and after her complaint was filed, of several affidavits of lis pendens which affected the title to certain real property owned by him.
On July 6, 1973, appellant dismissed her complaint as to appellee Koven. Subsequently, the case was scheduled for trial on appellee Koven’s counterclaim, and on November 21, 1973, the trial court entered a final judgment, pursuant to a jury verdict, awarding him $60,000 plus interest and costs. Subsequently, appellant’s motions for a new trial or judgment n.o.v. were denied by the trial court in an order dated December 5, 1973. From this final judgment and order appellant appeals.
A firmly established maxim is that a final judgment or order of the trial court comes to this court on appeal clothed with a presumption of correctness and the one who asserts error has the burden of showing it. From this burden devolves the duty of an appellant to make any reversible error clearly, definitely, and fully appear. Failure to meet this burden impels the conclusion that there is no error in the record and the judgment or order appealed must be affirmed. American Motor Inns of Fla., Inc. v. Bell Electric Co., Fla.App. 1972, 260 So. 2d 276; Solomon v. Hunt, Fla.App.1971, 243 So. 2d 185; Hamilton v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co., Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 472; and see 2 Fla. Jur., Appeals § 316.
We have considered the record, the numerous points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the final judgment and order appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Myron B. Susman v. Schuyler, 328 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…209; Lehman v. Goldin, 160 Fla. 710, 36 So. 2d 259; Franklin v. Brown, Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 893; Gates v. Utsey, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 486; Retzky v. J. A. Cantor Associates, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 192 So. 2d 24; Strate v. Strate, Fla.App.1976, 328 So. 2d 29. We also find that the jury was justified in concluding that punitive damages were properly awarded on both claims against both Susman and Rosenblatt. Glusman v. Lieberman, Fla.App. 1973, 285 So. 2d 29; Adams v. Whitfield, Fla.1974, 290 So. 2d 49; D…
-
Alberger v. Harvison, 342 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ffer serious, permanent and continuing injuries. If the admission of the testimony was in effect error, appellants have failed to meet their burden in pointing out clearly, definitely and fully the prejudicial nature of said error. Strate v. Strate, 328 So. 2d 29 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). There was ample proper evidence regarding appellee’s injuries to support the verdict, rendering the admission of said testimony harmless error. Brevard County v. Apel, 246 So. 2d 134 (Fla.4th DCA 1971). The other points raised by…
-
Ronlee, Inc. v. Arvida Corp., 515 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…age Association v. Houghton, 349 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). It is appellant’s duty to show reversible error clearly on the record, and if appellant fails to meet this burden the conclusion must be that there is no error. E.g., Strate v. Strate, 328 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert, denied, 336 So. 2d 1184 (Fla.1976). We do not think appellant here has met its burden. On the contrary, the court’s conclusion that Ronlee failed to carry out its obligation under the contract is supported by competent substanti…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Motor Inns OF Fla., Inc. v. Bell Elec. Co., 260 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Hamilton v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 207 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Solomon v. John Hunt et ux., 243 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Embry Riddle Co. v. Carrodus, 207 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)