Poland v. Poland

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Poland v. Poland

112 So. 2d 588, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2950

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 1959

DocketNo. 58-760

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 So. 2d 588 (Poland v. Poland) 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

Poland v. Poland, 112 So. 2d 588, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2950 (Fla. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal the defendant-husband urges: 1. the evidence was insufficient to support the relief granted (alimony unconnected with divorce); 2. the evidence was such that the husband was “entitled” to a decree of'divorce; 3. the alimony awarded was “unwarranted under the circumstances.” We are thus presented with a reargument of the equities involved.

We have reviewed the record and have determined: 1. that all of the elements necessary for granting of relief under § 65.09, Fla.Stat. F.S.A., were presented for trial before the chancellor; 2. the chancellor, as the trier of facts, did not commit reversible error when he found upon conflicting evidence that the defendant husband was not entitled to a decree of divorce; 3. the amount of the alimony awarded was not such as to shock the conscience of this court or demonstrate a misconception of the applicable principles by the chancellor.

Affirmed.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal the defendant-husband urges: 1. the evidence was insufficient to support the relief granted (alimony unconnected with divorce); 2. the evidence was such that the husband was “entitled” to a decree of'divorce; 3. the alimony awarded was “unwarranted under the circumstances.” We are thus presented with a reargument of the equities involved.

We have reviewed the record and have determined: 1. that all of the elements necessary for granting of relief under § 65.09, Fla.Stat. F.S.A., were presented for trial before the chancellor; 2. the chancellor, as the trier of facts, did not commit reversible error when he found upon conflicting evidence that the defendant husband was not entitled to a decree of divorce; 3. the amount of the alimony awarded was not such as to shock the conscience of this court or demonstrate a misconception of the applicable principles by the chancellor.

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 So. 2d 588, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poland-v-poland-fladistctapp-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack