Trobaugh v. Trobaugh

Supreme Court of Florida

Trobaugh v. Trobaugh

81 So. 2d 629, 1955 Fla. LEXIS 3625

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJuly 20, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 81 So. 2d 629 (Trobaugh v. Trobaugh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Trobaugh v. Trobaugh, 81 So. 2d 629, 1955 Fla. LEXIS 3625 (Fla. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBERTS, Justice.

The appellee, plaintiff below, brought a suit for divorce against his wife, defendant below and appellant here, on the grounds of desertion and extreme cruelty. The defendant denied each of the grounds for divorce and interposed a plea of condonation. Trial of the issues was had before the Chancellor, who resolved the conflicts in the evidence in favor of the plaintiff, and entered a decree finding that the plaintiff had proved his charge of extreme cruelty. The defendant thereupon appealed, and thereafter the plaintiff filed his motion to affirm the decree on the ground that the questions involved were so unsubstantial as not to need further argument, within the meaning of Rule 38 of the Supreme Court Rules, 30 F.S.A.

We agree that the motion to affirm the decree should be granted. There was competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff had proved extreme cruelty, and we find no error in the holding of the court that the defendant did not sustain her defense of condonation.

It is well established that where the evidence on an issue is in conflict, this court will not disturb the ruling of the trial court if there is competent substantial evidence to sustain its finding. Therefore, the motion to affirm the decree must be granted under Rule 38; and the decree appealed from is, accordingly, ■

Affirmed.

DREW, C. J., and TERRELL and SE-BRING, JJ., concur.'

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

ROBERTS, Justice.

The appellee, plaintiff below, brought a suit for divorce against his wife, defendant below and appellant here, on the grounds of desertion and extreme cruelty. The defendant denied each of the grounds for divorce and interposed a plea of condonation. Trial of the issues was had before the Chancellor, who resolved the conflicts in the evidence in favor of the plaintiff, and entered a decree finding that the plaintiff had proved his charge of extreme cruelty. The defendant thereupon appealed, and thereafter the plaintiff filed his motion to affirm the decree on the ground that the questions involved were so unsubstantial as not to need further argument, within the meaning of Rule 38 of the Supreme Court Rules, 30 F.S.A.

We agree that the motion to affirm the decree should be granted. There was competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff had proved extreme cruelty, and we find no error in the holding of the court that the defendant did not sustain her defense of condonation.

It is well established that where the evidence on an issue is in conflict, this court will not disturb the ruling of the trial court if there is competent substantial evidence to sustain its finding. Therefore, the motion to affirm the decree must be granted under Rule 38; and the decree appealed from is, accordingly, ■

Affirmed.

DREW, C. J., and TERRELL and SE-BRING, JJ., concur.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 So. 2d 629, 1955 Fla. LEXIS 3625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trobaugh-v-trobaugh-fla-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack