FRANCES HOPPER TROBAUGH, APPELLANT,
v.
EUGENE R. TROBAUGH, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a divorce decree, finding sufficient evidence of extreme cruelty and rejecting the defense of condonation. The court emphasized its policy of deferring to trial court findings when supported by competent substantial evidence.
Yes, the trial court's finding of extreme cruelty was supported by competent substantial evidence, and the defense of condonation was not sustained. Therefore, the divorce decree is affirmed.
“It is well established that where the evidence on an issue is in conflict, this court will not disturb the ruling of the trial court if there is competent substantial evidence to sustain its finding.”
This quote establishes the standard of review for conflicting evidence, emphasizing deference to the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA husband sued his wife for divorce, alleging desertion and extreme cruelty. The wife denied the allegations and claimed condonation. The trial court …
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 Desertion cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
The appellee, plaintiff below, brought a suit for divorce against his wife, defendant below and appellant here, on the grounds of desertion and extreme cruelty. The defendant denied each of the grounds for divorce and interposed a plea of condonation. Trial of the issues was had before the Chancellor, who resolved the conflicts in the evidence in favor of the plaintiff, and entered a decree finding that the plaintiff had proved his charge of extreme cruelty. The defendant thereupon appealed, and thereafter the plaintiff filed his motion to affirm the decree on the ground that the questions involved were so unsubstantial as not to need further argument, within the meaning of Rule 38 of the Supreme Court Rules, 30 F.S.A. We agree that the motion to affirm the decree should be granted. There was competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff had proved extreme cruelty, and we find no error in the holding of the court that the defendant did not sustain her defense of condonation.
It is well established that where the evidence on an issue is in conflict, this court will not disturb the ruling of the trial court if there is competent substantial evidence to sustain its finding. Therefore, the motion to affirm the decree must be granted under Rule 38; and the decree appealed from is, accordingly,
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J., and TERRELL and SE-BRING, JJ., concur.'
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. & William A. Cagle, 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1977)…there is any competent evidence to support a verdict, that verdict must be sustained regardless of the District Court’s opinion as to its appropriateness. Herzog v. Herzog, supra; Greenwood v. Oates, 251 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1971); Trobaugh v. Trobaugh, 81 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1955); Glass v. Parrish, 51 So. 2d 717 (Fla.1951). Finally, the question of whether defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the injury is generally one for the jury unless reasonable men could not differ in their determination of that…
-
Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1977)…the trial court, barring a lack of substantial evidentiary support for the findings of the trial court, the judgment should be affirmed. Greenwood v. Oates, 251 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1971); Glass v. Parrish, 51 So. 2d 717 (Fla.1951); Trobaugh v. Trobaugh, 81 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1955). A review of the record of trial discloses sufficient grounds for the findings of fact issued by the trial court. As the District Court noted in its opinion: “[W]e [can] find no clear abuse of discretion in the award of attorneys fees i…
-
S. Kornreich & Sons, Inc. v. Titan Agencies, Inc., 423 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…in arriving at the figure of $116,323.33 in damages. Although the evidence as to damages is conflicting, there is substantial evidence which supports the damages as determined by the court, thus, this finding must be affirmed. Trobaugh v. Trobaugh, 81 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1955); City of Miami Beach v. Fein, 263 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Cone v. Cone, 114 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). Kornreich argues further that it had sufficiently discredited the comptroller’s competency to the extent that the court shou…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence