TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sharp v. Sharp

Mary Jo SHARP v. Howard Murphy SHARP and Bank of Naples, Naples, Florida

Sharp v. Sharp, 185 So. 2d 508 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 6, 1966
Docket
No. 6426
Judges
Flynn, Liles, Pierce, Roger
Citations
185 So. 2d 5081966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5268
Cited by 5

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, plaintiff below, appeals from a final decree entered by the chancellor as result of a suit for divorce filed by the plaintiff against appellee, Howard Murphy Sharp, defendant below.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged, among other things, that defendant had on several occasions and without provocation physically abused her. Defendant counterclaimed and charged plaintiff with committing adultery on several occasions. Voluminous testimony and depositions were taken at the conclusion of which the chancellor entered a final order of dismissal, stating that both parties had failed to malee affirmative showing of sufficient equity on their own behalf or a lack of such equity in the other party as to entitle them to relief in a court of equity, and that the doctrine of clean hands barred each of them from such relief. Plaintiff’s complaint and defendant’s counterclaim were dismissed with prejudice.

We have meticulously examined the entire record including the testimony and depositions and find no error committed by the chancellor. It is a well-settled rule that the chancellor is the trier of facts; that *509 the weight of credibility to be given the evidence is within the discretion of the chancellor; that it is his duty and responsibility to discern which of the evidence to believe and which to disbelieve; and that his discretion is clothed with a presumption of correctness. We do not believe this presumption has been overcome in the instant case and for these reasons the decree is affirmed. Bagwell v. Bagwell, 153 Fla. 471 , 14 So.2d 841 (1943); Grossman v. Grossman, 90 So.2d 115 (Fla.1956); Clutter v. Clutter, 171 So.2d 544 (D.C.A.Fla.1965).

LILES, Acting C. J, PIERCE, J., and FLYNN, ROGER D., Associate Judge, concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →
1967: 11968: 11969: 11982: 219672026peak 1982 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sharp v. Sharp209 So. 2d 245 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)
  2. Marsh v. Marsh419 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1982)
  3. Mercier v. Mercier200 So. 2d 204 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)
  4. Rains v. Rains220 So. 2d 386 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)
  5. Switlik v. Hardwicke's New Jersey Preserves, Inc.421 So. 2d 195 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Most recent

  1. Switlik v. Hardwicke's New Jersey Preserves, Inc.421 So. 2d 195 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
  2. Marsh v. Marsh419 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1982)
  3. Rains v. Rains220 So. 2d 386 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)
  4. Sharp v. Sharp209 So. 2d 245 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)
  5. Mercier v. Mercier200 So. 2d 204 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Bagwell v. Bagwell, 14 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1943) 21
Grossman v. Grossman, 90 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1956) 10
Clutter v. Clutter, 171 So. 2d 544 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list