Sharp v. Sharp
| Decision Date | 06 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 6426,6426 |
| Citation | 185 So.2d 508 |
| Parties | Mary Jo SHARP, Appellant, v. Howard Murphy SHARP and Bank of Naples, Naples, Florida, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Allan L. McPeak, of Hixon & Hixon, Naples, for appellant.
Wotitzky, Wotitzky & Schoonover, Punta Gorda, for appellee Howard Sharp.
No appearance for appellee Bank of Naples.
The appellant, plaintiff below, appeals from a final decree entered by the chancellor as result of a suit for divorce filed by the plaintiff against appellee, Howard Murphy Sharp, defendant below.
Plaintiff's complaint alleged, among other things, that defendant had on several occasions and without provocation physically abused her. Defendant counterclaimed and charged plaintiff with committing adultery on several occasions. Voluminous testimony and depositions were taken at the conclusion of which the chancellor entered a final order of dismissal, stating that both parties had failed to make affirmative showing of sufficient equity on their own behalf or a lack of such equity in the other party as to entitle them to relief in a court of equity, and that the doctrine of clean hands barred each of them from such relief. Plaintiff's complaint and defendant's counterclaim were dismissed with prejudice.
We have meticulously examined the entire record including the testimony and depositions and find no error committed by the chancellor. It is a well-settled rule that the chancellor is the trier of facts; that the weight of credibility to be given the evidence is within the discretion of the chancellor; that it is his duty and responsibility to discern which of the evidence to believe and which to disbelieve; and that his discretion is clothed with a presumption of correctness. We do not believe this presumption has been overcome in the instant case and for these reasons the decree is affirmed. Bagwell v. Bagwell, 153 Fla. 471, 14 So.2d 841 (1943); Grossman v. Grossman, 90 So.2d 115 (Fla.1956); Clutter v. Clutter, 171 So.2d 544 (D.C.A.Fla.1965).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Switlik v. Hardwicke's New Jersey Preserves, Inc., 81-2744
...402, 17 So. 654 (1895); Hiestand v. Geier, 396 So.2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 407 So.2d 1103 (Fla.1981); Sharp v. Sharp, 185 So.2d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Revell v. Crews, 97 So.2d 336, 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957), cert. denied, 101 So.2d 817 ...
-
Marsh v. Marsh
...given their testimony, however, is a question for the trial court. Mirras v. Mirras, 202 So.2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Sharp v. Sharp, 185 So.2d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Findings of fact by a trial court are presumed to be correct and are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict. Strawg......
-
Rains v. Rains, 1426
...of Shirley v. Lake Butler Corporation, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 267; Wilson v. Wilson, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 732; Sharp v. Sharp, Fla.App.1966, 185 So.2d 508; and Lauray v. Lauray, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d CROSS, J., and KELLY, RICHARD, Associate Judge, concur. ...
-
Sharp v. Sharp, s. 7430
...her husband for divorce. He counterclaimed, and the trial Court denied relief to either party. This holding was affirmed in Sharp v. Sharp, Fla.App., 185 So.2d 508. The couple lived separate and apart as a result of their marital difficulties at all times relevant to the present proceeding.......