Joannou v. Joannou

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Joannou v. Joannou

117 So. 2d 40

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 11, 1960

DocketNo. 59-340

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 117 So. 2d 40 (Joannou v. Joannou) 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

Joannou v. Joannou, 117 So. 2d 40 (Fla. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is- from a final decree awarding the appellee wife separate maintenance alimony, exclusive use and possession of a jointly owned home, requiring the appellee wife to pay all charges against the jointly owned property from an alimony award of $400 per month, the possession and use of an automobile,' attorney’s fees and court costs.

The appellant has raised seven points in his brief which, when boiled down, simply take issue with the findings of the chancellor based upon the testimony and evidence submitted. He contends that the appellee wife failed to prove the allegations of her complaint for alimony unconnected with divorce (§ 65.09, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) for the reason that her testimony and evidence were not sufficiently corroborated, and further, that such acts as were testified to by appellee and her witness fell short of such acts or conduct as would justify a decree. Likewise, the appellant contends that the award of alimony, use and occupancy of the jointly owned property, use and possession of an automobile, attorney’s fees and court costs was unsupported by the record of testimony and evidence, particularly so because, as appellant contends, it was shown that the wife had money of her own and was well able to sustain herself, pay counsel fees and court costs.

It would serve no useful purpose for this court to reiterate the many decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida and the district courts holding that an appel[41]*41late court will not retry and reweigh testimony and evidence which are given before a chancellor unless it is clearly demonstrated that the chancellor has misconceived the weight and probative effect of the evidence, has failed to apply the proper rule of law or has applied an inapplicable rule of law. This the appellant has failed to demonstrate. The record before us supports the chancellor’s findings and his decree should not be disturbed. See Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663.

Accordingly, the decree appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is- from a final decree awarding the appellee wife separate maintenance alimony, exclusive use and possession of a jointly owned home, requiring the appellee wife to pay all charges against the jointly owned property from an alimony award of $400 per month, the possession and use of an automobile,' attorney’s fees and court costs.

The appellant has raised seven points in his brief which, when boiled down, simply take issue with the findings of the chancellor based upon the testimony and evidence submitted. He contends that the appellee wife failed to prove the allegations of her complaint for alimony unconnected with divorce (§ 65.09, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) for the reason that her testimony and evidence were not sufficiently corroborated, and further, that such acts as were testified to by appellee and her witness fell short of such acts or conduct as would justify a decree. Likewise, the appellant contends that the award of alimony, use and occupancy of the jointly owned property, use and possession of an automobile, attorney’s fees and court costs was unsupported by the record of testimony and evidence, particularly so because, as appellant contends, it was shown that the wife had money of her own and was well able to sustain herself, pay counsel fees and court costs.

It would serve no useful purpose for this court to reiterate the many decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida and the district courts holding that an appel[41]*41late court will not retry and reweigh testimony and evidence which are given before a chancellor unless it is clearly demonstrated that the chancellor has misconceived the weight and probative effect of the evidence, has failed to apply the proper rule of law or has applied an inapplicable rule of law. This the appellant has failed to demonstrate. The record before us supports the chancellor’s findings and his decree should not be disturbed. See Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663.

Accordingly, the decree appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 So. 2d 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joannou-v-joannou-fladistctapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack