MARY MARGARET TERRAL, APPELLANT,
v.
SAMUEL ROBERT TERRAL, 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 lower court's decision awarding custody of three minor children to their father, finding no abuse of discretion or reversible error in the chancellor's ruling.
No, the court found no abuse of discretion or reversible error in the chancellor's decision to award custody to the father.
“A review of the record submitted reveals that there was ample evidence which the chancellor was. warranted in believing to fully support the decree appealed from.”
This quote establishes the appellate court's basis for affirming the lower court's decision, emphasizing the sufficiency of the evidence presented.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA mother sued for divorce and custody of her three children. The father counterclaimed, alleging the mother was unfit and seeking custody for himself.…
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 Child Custody Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
STANLY, Associate Justice.
The appellant filed suit for , divorce against the appellee and asked for custody of their three minor children ranging in age from nine to eleven years old. The appellee filed answer and counterclaim in which it was alleged that appellant w;as not a .fit and proper person to have custody of said children, and asked that custody of said children he awarded to him. The chancellor below heard the testimony of numerous witnesses produced on behalf of the respective 'parties and thereafter entered a final decree awarding custody of the children to the appellee father, subject to certain visitation provisions not . in contest here.' - The error complained of on this appeal is that the court erred in refusing to award custody of said children to appellant, and requiring appellee to provide appellant with funds for support of said children.
A review of the record submitted reveals that there was ample evidence which the chancellor was. warranted in believing to fully support the decree appealed from. We fail to discover any abuse of discretion or reversible error on the part of the chancellor. Accordingly, the decree appealed from is
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J., and TERRELL and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shepard v. Miles Daniel Shepard, 87 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1956)…870, 36 So. 2d 920. In this case the chancellor in terms re [*809] tained control of the parties and the subject matter so that either parent, if he or she can make the proper showing, might secure custody of the minor child. Terral v. Terral, Fla., 83 So. 2d 270. We cannot say that the chancellor committed error in refusing alimony to the defendant and in imposing the costs of this litigation on both parties to the cause. The plaintiff was required to make contributions to the support of his children and h…