Vass v. Vass

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vass v. Vass

384 So. 2d 950, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16414

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 18, 1980

DocketNo. 78-2276

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 384 So. 2d 950 (Vass v. Vass) 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

Vass v. Vass, 384 So. 2d 950, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16414 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm. The burden of proof to support a finding of a special equity was on appellant. Tanner v. Tanner, 194 So.2d 702 (Fla.2d DCA 1967). The sufficiency of appellant’s showing in that regard depended upon the facts. It is well settled that the findings of the trier of fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are not to be disturbed on appeal. First National Bank of Daytona Beach v. Cobbett, 82 So.2d 870 (Fla.1955). Taken in the light most favorable to appel-lee, as required by Williams v. Williams, 177 So.2d 865 (Fla.3rd DCA 1965) we determine that the trial court’s findings do not constitute that abuse of discretion required by Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (1980) to warrant reversal.

WE THEREFORE AFFIRM.

MOORE, HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm. The burden of proof to support a finding of a special equity was on appellant. Tanner v. Tanner, 194 So.2d 702 (Fla.2d DCA 1967). The sufficiency of appellant’s showing in that regard depended upon the facts. It is well settled that the findings of the trier of fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are not to be disturbed on appeal. First National Bank of Daytona Beach v. Cobbett, 82 So.2d 870 (Fla.1955). Taken in the light most favorable to appel-lee, as required by Williams v. Williams, 177 So.2d 865 (Fla.3rd DCA 1965) we determine that the trial court’s findings do not constitute that abuse of discretion required by Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (1980) to warrant reversal.

WE THEREFORE AFFIRM.

MOORE, HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

384 So. 2d 950, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vass-v-vass-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack