FRANCES C. HART, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH H. HART AND HIS WIFE, SARA M. HART, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding substantial evidence supported the findings that the deed was not a forgery and was voluntarily given.
Appellant mother sued to set aside a deed given to her son and his wife, alleging forgery and undue influence. The trial court found the deed valid, n…
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 Action To Set Aside Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered in favor of appel-lees. The principal question preserved on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.
Appellant mother brought this action seeking to set aside a deed given by her to appellee son and his wife. The prayer of her complaint is grounded upon the contention that the deed is a forgery, but, if genuine, it was procured by undue influence arising out of a fiduciary relationship between the parties. After trial the court entered its judgment sustaining the validity of the deed upon the finding that it was not a forgery but the voluntary act of appellant given under circumstances free from undue influence.
In our review of the issues presented for decision, we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that the judgment of a trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. The record reveals that although the testimony is conflicting, there is substantial evidence to support the findings made and conclusions reached by the trial court.1 It iá not the province of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts. These findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court committed *455error or the evidence demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous.2 The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- OLD Equity Life Ins. Co. v. Franklyn Levenson, 177 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Stoller v. Jaffe, 125 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Marquette v. Hathaway, 76 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1954)
- Rowland v. McCALL, 118 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)