Opinion
October 17, 1952.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Frank A. Smith, J.
Fishback, Williams Smith, Orlando, for appellant.
Dorothea Watson, Orlando, for appellee.
Appellant brought this suit to invalidate certain conveyances executed in favor of appellee. Louise Sippel was permitted to intervene and file a counterclaim attacking the validity of an assignment of mortgage. An answer was filed, testimony was taken, and at final hearing the amended bill of complaint and the counterclaim of the intervenor were dismissed. This appeal was prosecuted from the final decree.
The sole point presented is whether or not the conveyances brought in question were the product of incompetency and undue influence.
After taking a large volume of oral and documentary testimony, the chancellor wrote a very helpful opinion in which he set out in extenso his findings of fact, including the governing rule of law on which he based his final decree. Under such circumstances the question reduces itself to that of whether or not the record contains substantial and pertinent testimony to support the decree appealed from. We have examined the evidence, and find ample support for the chancellor's finding as to competency of Julius and Louise Sippel, that the instruments assaulted were freely and voluntarily made and were not the product of undue influence on the part of Mrs. Buser, the appellee.
The fact that husband and wife and two sisters were the principals in this litigation creates no presumption of fraud or undue influence. All presumptions support the findings of the chancellor, and a diligent search reveals nothing that would warrant us in overthrowing the final decree. The chancellor thought the case was ruled by Rappaport v. Kalstein, 156 Fla. 722, 24 So.2d 301, and we think his finding was correct.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
SEBRING, C.J., and THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.