Opinion
June 23, 1950. Rehearing Denied July 6, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Duval County, Miles W. Lewis, J.
P. Donald DeHoff, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Will O. Murrell and George E. Turner, Jacksonville. for appellee.
This appeal is from a decree by the lower court dismissing a bill in the nature of a bill of review by which the plaintiff-appellant sought to have the court set aside that part of a divorce decree, theretofore entered between the parties, ratifying and confirming a stipulation between the parties settling their property rights. The plaintiff based her prayer for cancellation of the stipulation on allegations setting forth fraud, duress, undue influence, coercion, and overreaching by the defendant-appellee in obtaining her signature to the stipulation.
Testimony was taken before a Special Master, who found that there was neither fraud nor coercion in procuring the plaintiff's execution of the stipulation and recommended that the bill in the nature of a bill of review be dismissed. The Special Master's findings were affirmed by the Chancellor, and the bill dismissed.
This court said, in State ex rel. Lorenz v. Lorenz, 149 Fla. 625, 6 So.2d 620, 621: "The stability and finality of decrees and the eventual termination of litigation are most important to the proper administration of justice in the courts, therefore, doubt should not be lightly cast upon final orders entered by courts of chancery. Whenever one of them is brought into suspicion the person making the charge should be prepared definitely to delineate the elements of fraud and the like upon which he relies to show that the decree is voidable."
In the instant case, both the Special Master and the Chancellor found that the appellant had failed to prove her allegations of fraud, or other infirmity, on which she relied in attacking the final decree here in question. The findings of fact of the master, as approved by the lower court, will not be disturbed unless clearly shown to be erroneous. Nahmod v. Nelson, 147 Fla. 564, 3 So.2d 162. We have carefully considered the evidence in this case with respect not only to the quantum of the evidence but also as to the inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, and have concluded that the Chancellor was correct in holding that the Special Master's findings of fact should be affirmed and in dismissing the bill in the nature of a bill of review.
For the reasons stated, the decree appealed from should be and it is hereby
Affirmed.
ADAMS, C.J., and TERRELL, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.