Belfield v. Lochner
| Decision Date | 18 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 4214,4214 |
| Parties | Amy Claretta BELFIELD and Edwin George Belfield, her husband, Appellants, v. Don M. LOCHNER and Clellah Lochner Jernigan, unmarried, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
T. C. Cork, Clermont, and Arthur E. Roberts, Groveland, for appellants.
C. Arthur Yergey, of Yergey & Yergey, Orlando, for appellees.
Appellees, Don M. Lochner and Clellah Lochner Jernigan, as plaintiffs below, sought to have the court set aside a deed dated January 8, 1952, made by their father, John C. Lochner, and joined in by their stepmother, then Amy C. Lochner, defendant-appellant, conveying certain property to John C. Lochner and Amy C. Lochner, his wife, and to the survivor of them. The chancellor decreed that the property described in the complaint was on January 8, 1952, homestead property to the extent of one-half acre of land and declared as null, void, and of no force and effect the deed in question as to Lots 2, 4, and 6 of Block 82, City of Clermont, less the west 4.8 feet of Lot 6 which he designated as being in excess of the half-acre exemption allowable under Article X of the Constitution of Florida, F.S.A. It was further determined that Amy Claretta Belfield, formerly Amy Claretta Lochner, as the widow of John C. Lochner, deceased, be decreed as owner of a life estate in Lots 2, 4, and 6 of Block 82 and the fee simple owner of the portion exceeding the constitutional homestead exemption as previously set out and that the plaintiffs, as the only children and heirs of John C. Lochner, be decreed as owners in fee simple of Lots 2, 4, and 6, Block 82, less the west 4.8 feet of Lot 6, subject to the life estate which had been decreed in favor of Amy Claretta Belfield, formerly Amy Claretta Lochner.
After the death of John C. Lochner, his widow, Amy C. Lochner, was married to one Edwin George Belfield; from the final decree of the chancellor, these two have brought the present appeal.
From the record before this court, we find no basis for overturning the decree. We observe that there was entered a pretrial order in which the parties stipulated to certain matters. We further note, and it was conceded before this court, that at the final hearing, testimony was given by witnesses under the issues created and that this was not reported. The chancellor rendered an opinion, making certain findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which he based...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farrington v. State
...the appellant to present a record showing a basis for reversal. Faulkner v. State, 146 Fla. 769, 1 So.2d 857 (1941); Belfield v. Lochner, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 668. If there are errors or omissions in the record, or the record does not speak the truth, the burden is upon the appellant to ......
-
Nemeth v. De Lauega, 77-703
...347 So.2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Reicheck v. Florida Bond & Mortgage Co., 237 So.2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Belfield v. Lochner, 162 So.2d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). ...
-
Conlee Const. Co. v. Cay Const. Co.
...as error. Johnson v. Town of Eatonville, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 664; Gleim v. Gleim, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 610; Belfield v. Lochner, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 668. Without the supersedeas bond or a copy thereof, this court cannot determine the extent and terms of the surety's obligation. T......
-
Gleim v. Gleim, 64-1061
...and duty of the appellant to provide the appellate court with a record sufficient to review the matter assigned as Belfield v. Lochner, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 668; Cleeland v. Miami Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 260; Best v. Barnette, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 90; Robinson v......