Lynch v. Coppola

129 So. 2d 183
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 19, 1961
Docket1815, 1816
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 129 So. 2d 183 (Lynch v. Coppola) 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
Lynch v. Coppola, 129 So. 2d 183 (Fla. Ct. App. 1961).

Opinion

129 So.2d 183 (1961)

Arthur A. LYNCH, Appellant,
v.
Donald COPPOLA and Philip Epifano, individually and as Trustees; Vero Investors, Ltd., a Limited Partnership composed of Vincent J. Anthony and Donald Coppola, as General Partners; and St. Francis Corporation, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.
Kennith FRANK, Appellant,
v.
Donald COPPOLA and Philip Epifano, individually and as Trustees; Vero Investors, Ltd., a Limited Partnership composed of Vincent J. Anthony and Donald Coppola, as General Partners; and St. Francis Corporation, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 1815, 1816.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

April 19, 1961.
Rehearing Denied May 12, 1961.

Brown & Cooksey, Fort Pierce, for appellant in Case No. 1815.

Anderson & Nadeau, Miami, for appellant in Case No. 1816.

John R. Gould, Vero Beach, and Jones, Adams, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

STEPHENSON, GUNTER, Associate Judge.

This consolidated appeal originated as four separate actions before the chancellor and is a twelve volume record before us. The final decree appealed from composed five pages of findings and six pages of adjudications. No useful purpose can be served by delineating the evidence before the chancellor. Each of the assignments of error in these appeals complains of the chancellor's findings. The chancellor personally saw and heard the witnesses testify. Every presumption favors the correctness of rulings of the chancellor and a final decree *184 largely or solely predicated on questions of fact will not be reversed unless the evidence clearly shows it to have been erroneous, and a presumption is stronger when the chancellor has himself heard the witnesses testify. Moreover, one who complains of error must make such error clearly appear. Harmon v. Harmon, Fla. 1949, 40 So.2d 209; and Videon v. Hodge, Fla. 1954, 72 So.2d 396.

We conclude, upon careful review, that no reversible error has been made to appear and, accordingly, the final decree of the chancellor is affirmed.

KANNER, Acting C.J., and SHANNON, J., concur.

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

Related

Dudley v. Thomas
295 So. 2d 646 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)
Blume v. Blume
203 So. 2d 627 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Metropolitan Dade County Water & Sewer Board v. Community Utilities Corp.
200 So. 2d 831 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
METROPOLITAN DADE CTY. W. & S. BD. v. Community U. Corp.
200 So. 2d 831 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Gray Roofing Co. v. Duval Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
191 So. 2d 74 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Martin v. Flanigan
188 So. 2d 5 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Bazzano v. Bazzano
175 So. 2d 801 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
City of Miami v. Bus Benches Co.
174 So. 2d 49 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Seiff v. Presto Brick MacHine Corp.
168 So. 2d 700 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Rimer v. Mortgage Guarantee Corp.
168 So. 2d 549 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Dade County v. Pepper
168 So. 2d 198 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Bertman v. Solomon
166 So. 2d 499 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Lund v. Lund
161 So. 2d 873 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Peller v. Kisiel
161 So. 2d 573 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Katz v. Katz
159 So. 2d 241 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Riverside Homes, Inc. v. City of Miami
159 So. 2d 264 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Groover v. Simonhoff
157 So. 2d 541 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Banner Trading Co.
157 So. 2d 201 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
Joyner v. Andrews
137 So. 2d 870 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Parsley Brothers Construction Co. v. Humphrey
136 So. 2d 257 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 So. 2d 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-coppola-fladistctapp-1961.