Shaw v. Shaw, No. 47710

CourtFlorida Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSUNDBERG; OVERTON
Citation334 So.2d 13
Decision Date12 May 1976
Docket NumberNo. 47710
PartiesGerald B. SHAW, Petitioner, v. Jean A. SHAW, Respondent.

Page 13

334 So.2d 13
Gerald B. SHAW, Petitioner,
v.
Jean A. SHAW, Respondent.
No. 47710.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 12, 1976.
Rehearing Denied July 16, 1976.

Page 14

Edward Schroll, Miami, for petitioner.

Milton M. Ferrell, Miami, for respondent.

Page 15

SUNDBERG, Justice.

This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal reported at 314 So.2d 205, which is asserted to be in conflict with Westerman v. Shell's City, Inc., 265 So.2d 43 (Fla.1972), as well as similar cases which announce the proposition that an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court by re-evaluating the evidence in the cause. 1 Jurisdiction vests in this Court pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.

In proceedings for dissolution of marriage between petitioner-husband and respondent-wife, in which respondent was the moving party, the trial judge on July 15, 1974, entered an amemded final judgment (i) finding that the marriage was irretrievably broken and thereby dissolving the bonds of marriage between the parties; (ii) finding that wife, 'although she is in her 49th year and has been married 20 years and has minor children, is capable of supporting herself' and, based upon the financial affidavits of the parties, exhibits admitted into evidence, and the testimony, that the husband could not sustain both households, therefore ordering that the husband pay to the wife rehabilitation alimony in the amount of $50 per week for a period of one year commencing July 1, 1974; (iii) adjudicating that certain savings accounts of the parties belonged to both parties equally and ordering that the accounts be equalized based upon balances as of the date of the final hearing; (iv) granting custody of the two minor children of the parties to the wife with rights of visitation in the husband and ordering the husband to pay to the wife the sum of $30 per week per child until said child reaches majority, marries or becomes self-supporting; (v) granting use and occupancy of the marital home to the wife until the children move out or until she remarries or the children reach their majority provided that the wife should make all payments on the home place, including mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, utilities, and all repairs and maintenance with the stipulation that the home place together with its contents belong to the parties as tenants in common; (vi) providing that all future medical and dental expenses of the children were to be divided equally between the husband and wife; (vii) providing for transfer by the husband to the wife of title to an automobile in the possession of the wife; and (viii) reserving jurisdiction for costs and assessment, if any, of attorneys' fees, but not retaining jurisdiction for any other purposes.

The evidence at the final hearing upon which the amended final judgment is based was essentially as follows: The 49-year-old wife has a high school education, plus one year of business college. She has also attended court reporting school and has engaged in sales work for less than a year. She has had 16 years of experience in secretarial work, in addition to three years' experience as a legal secretary, plus 10 to 12 years of legal secretarial experience working intermittently for the husband.

The husband is an attorney at law practicing in Miami, Florida. Although his 1973 tax return reflects an adjusted gross income in excess of $30,500, the evidence reflected that, over the past five years, he has realized an average weekly net income of $247.25. As testified by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
483 practice notes
  • Tibbs v. State, No. 56918
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 9, 1981
    ...courts may not reweigh evidence. They may only assess its sufficiency. See Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Westerman v. Shell's City, Inc., 265 So.2d 43 (Fla.1972). So now to characterize our former action as an erroneous reweighing of the e......
  • Provenzano v. Moore, No. 95973.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • September 24, 1999
    ...This Court may not arbitrarily overturn the circuit court's finding based upon conflicting evidence in the record. See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976) ("It is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court through reevaluation of the......
  • Royer v. State, No. 78-1050
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 28, 1979
    ...consent, by re-evaluation of the testimony and evidence from the record before us, it would not be proper to do so. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Westerman v. Shell's City, Inc., 265 So.2d 43 (Fla.1972). A warrantless search which is made pursuant to consent does not offend the Fou......
  • ROSS v. State of Fla., No. SC07-2368.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • September 8, 2010
    ...particularly since this factual finding is heavily based upon a determination of Detective Waldron's credibility. See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976) (“[T]he function of the trial court is to evaluate and weigh the testimony and evidence based upon its observation of the bearing, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
483 cases
  • Tibbs v. State, No. 56918
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 9, 1981
    ...courts may not reweigh evidence. They may only assess its sufficiency. See Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Westerman v. Shell's City, Inc., 265 So.2d 43 (Fla.1972). So now to characterize our former action as an erroneous reweighing of the e......
  • Provenzano v. Moore, No. 95973.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • September 24, 1999
    ...This Court may not arbitrarily overturn the circuit court's finding based upon conflicting evidence in the record. See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976) ("It is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court through reevaluation of the......
  • Royer v. State, No. 78-1050
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 28, 1979
    ...consent, by re-evaluation of the testimony and evidence from the record before us, it would not be proper to do so. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Westerman v. Shell's City, Inc., 265 So.2d 43 (Fla.1972). A warrantless search which is made pursuant to consent does not offend the Fou......
  • ROSS v. State of Fla., No. SC07-2368.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • September 8, 2010
    ...particularly since this factual finding is heavily based upon a determination of Detective Waldron's credibility. See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976) (“[T]he function of the trial court is to evaluate and weigh the testimony and evidence based upon its observation of the bearing, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT