Clem v. Clem

215 So. 2d 789, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4875
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 26, 1968
DocketNo. 1561
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 215 So. 2d 789 (Clem v. Clem) 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
Clem v. Clem, 215 So. 2d 789, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4875 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

GOODING, MARION W., Associate Judge.

The appellee, plaintiff in the lower court, brought a suit for divorce against the appellant, defendant in the lower court, praying for a divorce and for custody of the minor child of the parties. The defendant filed an answer and counterclaim also seeking a divorce and custody of the minor child.

The lower court rendered its judgment of divorce for the plaintiff and awarded custody of the minor child to the plaintiff.

The defendant filed a petition for rehearing and upon the court’s order denying said petition, appeal was taken to this court.

The points raised on appeal relate solely to the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support awarding the custody of the minor child to the plaintiff.

This is a rather typical divorce suit in which the testimony is conflicting. However, the record reveals that there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial court. The appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts unless there be a clear and [790]*790unmistakable showing of the abuse of judicial discretion and that the conclusions reached are erroneous. Grant v. Corbitt, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 25; Rudolph v. Rudolph, Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 397; Harrison v. Harrison, Fla.App. 1964, 165 So.2d 235.

The evidence sustains the findings of fact and conclusions of the law that the custody of the minor child should be with the plaintiff, and the appellant has failed to show that the trial court’s action constituted an abuse of discretion. The judgment appealed should be and is affirmed.

REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Horatio Enterprises, Inc. v. Rabin
614 So. 2d 555 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Banco Do Brasil v. City Nat. Bank
609 So. 2d 689 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co.
349 So. 2d 1187 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1977)
Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc. v. Pentland
243 So. 2d 169 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
215 So. 2d 789, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clem-v-clem-fladistctapp-1968.