Hart v. Hart

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hart v. Hart

225 So. 2d 454, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5443

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 5, 1969

DocketNo. L-67

StatusPublished

This text of 225 So. 2d 454 (Hart v. Hart) 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

Hart v. Hart, 225 So. 2d 454, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5443 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered in favor of appel-lees. The principal question preserved on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.

Appellant mother brought this action seeking to set aside a deed given by her to appellee son and his wife. The prayer of her complaint is grounded upon the contention that the deed is a forgery, but, if genuine, it was procured by undue influence arising out of a fiduciary relationship between the parties. After trial the court entered its judgment sustaining the validity of the deed upon the finding that it was not a forgery but the voluntary act of appellant given under circumstances free from undue influence.

In our review of the issues presented for decision, we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that the judgment of a trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. The record reveals that although the testimony is conflicting, there is substantial evidence to support the findings made and conclusions reached by the trial court.¹ It iá not the province of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts. These findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court committed [455]*455error or the evidence demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous.² The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered in favor of appel-lees. The principal question preserved on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.

Appellant mother brought this action seeking to set aside a deed given by her to appellee son and his wife. The prayer of her complaint is grounded upon the contention that the deed is a forgery, but, if genuine, it was procured by undue influence arising out of a fiduciary relationship between the parties. After trial the court entered its judgment sustaining the validity of the deed upon the finding that it was not a forgery but the voluntary act of appellant given under circumstances free from undue influence.

In our review of the issues presented for decision, we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that the judgment of a trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. The record reveals that although the testimony is conflicting, there is substantial evidence to support the findings made and conclusions reached by the trial court.¹ It iá not the province of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts. These findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court committed [455]*455error or the evidence demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous.² The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 So. 2d 454, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-hart-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack