Isidoro v. Isidoro

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Isidoro v. Isidoro

147 So. 2d 345

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 20, 1962

DocketNo. 62-171

StatusPublished

This text of 147 So. 2d 345 (Isidoro v. Isidoro) 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

Isidoro v. Isidoro, 147 So. 2d 345 (Fla. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant husband, plaintiff below, was granted a final decree of divorce on the ground of adultery wherein the chancellor found, inter alia, that the equities of the parties in jointly held property, and property previously jointly held, were approximately equal. He seeks review of those portions of the final decree ordering him to convey his interest in the family home and one of two automobiles to the appellee, granting custody of the parties’ minor child to the appellee, and awarding the appellee costs and attorney’s fees.

Having reviewed the record, examined the briefs, and heard oral argument, we conclude that the appellant has failed to. sustain his burden to demonstrate reversible error, Robinson v. Foland, Fla.App. 1960, 124 So.2d 512; Farina v. Farina, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 485, in that he has failed to show that the chancellor misapplied a settled rule of law or misapprehended the legal effect of the evidence as a whole in arriving at his conclusions of law and fact. Grossman v. Grossman, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 115; McDade v. McDade, 107 Fla. 552, 146 So. 228.

Accordingly, the final decree appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant husband, plaintiff below, was granted a final decree of divorce on the ground of adultery wherein the chancellor found, inter alia, that the equities of the parties in jointly held property, and property previously jointly held, were approximately equal. He seeks review of those portions of the final decree ordering him to convey his interest in the family home and one of two automobiles to the appellee, granting custody of the parties’ minor child to the appellee, and awarding the appellee costs and attorney’s fees.

Having reviewed the record, examined the briefs, and heard oral argument, we conclude that the appellant has failed to. sustain his burden to demonstrate reversible error, Robinson v. Foland, Fla.App. 1960, 124 So.2d 512; Farina v. Farina, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 485, in that he has failed to show that the chancellor misapplied a settled rule of law or misapprehended the legal effect of the evidence as a whole in arriving at his conclusions of law and fact. Grossman v. Grossman, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 115; McDade v. McDade, 107 Fla. 552, 146 So. 228.

Accordingly, the final decree appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 So. 2d 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isidoro-v-isidoro-fladistctapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack