Staton v. Staton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Staton v. Staton

231 So. 2d 531, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6937

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 3, 1970

DocketNo. L-461

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 231 So. 2d 531 (Staton v. Staton) 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

Staton v. Staton, 231 So. 2d 531, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6937 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an adverse final judgment, and by cross-appeal the appellee challenges that part of the same judgment which denied her motion for appointment of a receiver to manage the property jointly owned by the parties. The principal question preserved on both the appeal and cross-appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.

In our review of the issues presented for decision we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. The record reveals that although the testimony is conflicting, there is substantial evidence to support the findings made and conclusions reached by the trial court. It is not the province of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts. These findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court committed error or that the evidence demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous.¹ The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an adverse final judgment, and by cross-appeal the appellee challenges that part of the same judgment which denied her motion for appointment of a receiver to manage the property jointly owned by the parties. The principal question preserved on both the appeal and cross-appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.

In our review of the issues presented for decision we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. The record reveals that although the testimony is conflicting, there is substantial evidence to support the findings made and conclusions reached by the trial court. It is not the province of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts. These findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court committed error or that the evidence demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous.¹ The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 So. 2d 531, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staton-v-staton-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack