Mercier v. Mercier

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mercier v. Mercier

200 So. 2d 204, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4941

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 1967

DocketNo. 7278

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 200 So. 2d 204 (Mercier v. Mercier) 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

Mercier v. Mercier, 200 So. 2d 204, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4941 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant below, appeals from a final decree granting a divorce to ap-pellee, plaintiff below.

Appellant contends that the findings of fact made by the chancellor are clearly erroneous and manifestly against the weight and effect of the evidence. [205]*205We have carefully examined the very extensive record here presented and find no error committed by the chancellor. As the trier of fact, the chancellor has the responsibility of determining the weight, credibility and sufficiency of the evidence. These findings are clothed with a presumption of correctness. Clutter v. Clutter, 171 So.2d 544, 545 (D.C.A.Fla.1965); Sharp v. Sharp, 185 So.2d 508 (D.C.A.Fla.1966). No abuse of discretion having been shown, this presumption has not been overcome in the instant case. For this reason, the decree is affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., PIERCE, J., and OVERSTREET, MURRAY W., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant below, appeals from a final decree granting a divorce to ap-pellee, plaintiff below.

Appellant contends that the findings of fact made by the chancellor are clearly erroneous and manifestly against the weight and effect of the evidence. [205]*205We have carefully examined the very extensive record here presented and find no error committed by the chancellor. As the trier of fact, the chancellor has the responsibility of determining the weight, credibility and sufficiency of the evidence. These findings are clothed with a presumption of correctness. Clutter v. Clutter, 171 So.2d 544, 545 (D.C.A.Fla.1965); Sharp v. Sharp, 185 So.2d 508 (D.C.A.Fla.1966). No abuse of discretion having been shown, this presumption has not been overcome in the instant case. For this reason, the decree is affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., PIERCE, J., and OVERSTREET, MURRAY W., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 So. 2d 204, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercier-v-mercier-fladistctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack