From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bruggisser v. Bruggisser

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 10, 1961
133 So. 2d 654 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961)

Opinion

No. 61-175.

October 19, 1961. Rehearing Denied November 10, 1961.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Harold R. Bann, J.

Pallot, Marks, Lundeen, Poppell Horwich, Miami, for appellant.

Arthur T. Bruggisser in pro. per.

Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C.J., and HORTON and BARKDULL, JJ.


The former wife, who was the plaintiff in a divorce action, appeals from an order modifying final decree of divorce by reducing the amount of the alimony and altering the visitation rights accorded to the appellee. After examining the record and reading the testimony presented, we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the order of the chancellor. Although this court might have decided the questions presented differently, an appellate court should not substitute its judgment for that of the chancellor when the record contains substantial evidence in support of his conclusion. E.g., Brenner v. Smullian, Fla. 1955, 84 So.2d 44, 49; Board of County Com'rs v. F.A. Sebring Realty Co., Fla. 1953, 63 So.2d 256, 258.

The order appealed therefore must be affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Bruggisser v. Bruggisser

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 10, 1961
133 So. 2d 654 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961)
Case details for

Bruggisser v. Bruggisser

Case Details

Full title:ANN BRUGGISSER, APPELLANT, v. ARTHUR BRUGGISSER, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Nov 10, 1961

Citations

133 So. 2d 654 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961)

Citing Cases

Wrains v. Rose

The factual issues, conflicts of testimony and evidentiary inferences were submitted to the jury and were…

Tagliarini v. Tagliarini

"The decision of the chancellor carries with it the presumption of correctness on appellate review where, as…