MARITZA H. THERIAULT, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES J. THERIAULT, ROBERT A. BERGS, AND SLEUTH, INC., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Maritza Theriault appealed a judgment dismissing her action for relief from a fraudulent transaction involving her husband's transfer of his stock in Sleuth, Inc. to Robert Bergs during their divorce proceedings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error and that competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court's factual findings.
The trial court did not commit reversible error. The trial court's factual determinations, resolved in favor of Bergs and Sleuth, Inc., were supported by competent, substantial evidence and were not clearly erroneous, even though conflicting evidence was presented and another factfinder might have reached a different conclusion.
[1] A trial court's factual determinations, particularly regarding witness credibility, will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous.
[2] Appellate courts will affirm a trial court's judgment when competent, substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court's findings and conclusions.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A trial court's factual determinations, especially in regard to witness credibility, will not be disturbed unless they are shown to be clearly erroneous.”
Establishes the deferential standard of review for trial court factual findings on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a dissolution of marriage, James Theriault transferred his fifty percent ownership in Sleuth, Inc., to Robert Bergs, whose son owned the remain…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Stock Transfer cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Maritza H. Theriault, challenges a final judgment rendered in connection with her action seeking relief from a fraudulent transaction. We affirm.
This action arose out of a dissolution of marriage action. While the dissolution action was pending, Mrs. Theriault’s husband, James J. Theriault, transferred his fifty percent ownership in Sleuth, Inc., to appellee, Robert A. Bergs. Mr. Bergs’ son owned the remaining fifty percent of the corporation.
Mrs. Theriault, joined by her husband, then filed a supplemental petition for relief from a fraudulent transaction. They alleged that Mr. Theriault had fraudulently made an agreement with Mr. Bergs whereby Mr. Bergs would buy Mr. Theriault’s stock at a greatly reduced price and then resell it to him after the divorce. Mr. Bergs denied that any agreement was made to sell the stock back to Mr. Theriault. Mr. Bergs and Sleuth, Inc., were made parties to the supplemental petition proceedings, which were severed from the dissolution action. Prior to a final decision being rendered, Mr. Theriault filed a voluntary dismissal of his action in regard to the supplemental petition for relief from a fraudulent transaction. At the conclusion of the hearing on this matter, the trial court ruled against Mrs. Theriault and entered a judgment in favor of Mr. Bergs and Sleuth, Inc. Mrs. Theriault filed a timely notice of appeal.
After reviewing the record on appeal, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel, we conclude that the trial court did not commit any reversible error in its rulings and that competent, substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings and conclusion exists in the record. See Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1981). In this case, conflicting evidence was presented to the trial court, and the court resolved the conflict in favor of Mr. Bergs and Sleuth, Inc. A trial court’s factual determinations, especially in regard to witness credibility, will not be disturbed unless they are shown to be clearly erroneous. Taylor Creek Village Ass’n, Inc. v. Houghton, 349 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). See also Seijas v. Seijas, 557 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). In this case, although someone else may have reached a different conclusion, the trial court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. We, accordingly, affirm the final judgment.
Affirmed.
PARKER, C.J., and SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stroud v. Crosby, 712 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…n his behalf. Because the evidence presented at trial does not support the trial court’s finding that Stroud made fraudulent misrepresentations, we reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings. See generally Theriault v. Theriault, 697 So. 2d 1001, 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA) (holding that an appellate court may disturb a trial court’s clearly erroneous factual findings), review denied, 705 So. 2d 11 (Fla.1997); Clegg v. Chipola Aviation, Inc., 458 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (holding that c…
Authorities Cited
- Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)
- Taylor Creek Vill. Ass'n, Inc. v. Houghton, 349 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Seijas v. Seijas, 557 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)