Aronson v. Aronson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Aronson v. Aronson

227 So. 2d 214

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 21, 1969

DocketNo. 69-690

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 227 So. 2d 214 (Aronson v. Aronson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aronson v. Aronson, 227 So. 2d 214 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal from a final judgment of divorce the appellant husband urges error in that portion of the judgment which granted custody of two minor children to the appellee wife. Appellant recognizes that this is an area of the law in which the decision of the trial judge comes to the appellate court clothed with a strong presumption of correctness. He urges nevertheless that the weight of the evidence is such that the decision of the trial judge amounted to an abuse of discretion. Our review of the record convinces us that there is sufficient evidence to support the finding of the chancellor and that for us to reverse his finding would amount to a substitution of our judgment for his in a conflicting factual situation. We therefore hold that error has not been demonstrated. See Mehaffey v. Mehaffey, 143 Fla. 157, 196 So. 416 (1940).

Appellant presents one additional point urging error upon the court’s refusal to admit into evidence certain documents. We find that error is not demonstrated.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal from a final judgment of divorce the appellant husband urges error in that portion of the judgment which granted custody of two minor children to the appellee wife. Appellant recognizes that this is an area of the law in which the decision of the trial judge comes to the appellate court clothed with a strong presumption of correctness. He urges nevertheless that the weight of the evidence is such that the decision of the trial judge amounted to an abuse of discretion. Our review of the record convinces us that there is sufficient evidence to support the finding of the chancellor and that for us to reverse his finding would amount to a substitution of our judgment for his in a conflicting factual situation. We therefore hold that error has not been demonstrated. See Mehaffey v. Mehaffey, 143 Fla. 157, 196 So. 416 (1940).

Appellant presents one additional point urging error upon the court’s refusal to admit into evidence certain documents. We find that error is not demonstrated.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 So. 2d 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aronson-v-aronson-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack