Olimpia Health Systems, Inc. v. Preferred Care Partners Holding Corp.

46 So. 3d 1110, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 16274, 2010 WL 4226275
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 27, 2010·No. 3D09-2220·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

As the party alleging fraud, it was the appellant’s burden to prove it by substantial evidence. Tischler v. Robinson, 79 Fla. 638, 84 So. 914 (1920); Volusia County Bank v. Bigelow, 45 Fla. 638, 33 So. 704 (1903). Here, the trial court “weighted] the testimony presented to it with due consideration being given to the particular circumstances surrounding the conveyances under attack. The court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law come to us with a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.” Scott v. Dansby, 334 So.2d 331, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We find no reversible error in the trial court’s ruling.

Affirmed.

GERSTEN and CORTINAS, JJ., concur.

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

Olimpia Health Systems, Inc. v. Preferred Care Partners Holding Corp., 46 So. 3d 1110, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 16274, 2010 WL 4226275 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

46 So. 3d 1110 (Olimpia Health Systems, Inc. v. Preferred Care Partners Holding Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Scott v. Dansby
334 So. 2d 331 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Volusia County Bank v. Bigelow
45 Fla. 638 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1903)
Tischler v. Robinson
84 So. 914 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1920)