LEROY FIEDLER, APPELLANT,
v.
ALICE H. FIEDLER, APPELLEE
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.
In a marriage dissolution case, the Florida appellate court upheld the trial court's award of the husband's interest in the marital home to the wife as lump sum alimony, but reversed the award of a special equity in the husband's interest in a Vero Beach lot, holding that the wife's payment for the lot from marital earnings did not qualify as an extraordinary contribution warranting special equity treatment.
The trial court properly awarded the husband's interest in the marital home to the wife as lump sum alimony, as the wife's bad health demonstrated sufficient necessity. However, the trial court erred in awarding the wife a special equity in the husband's interest in the Vero Beach lot, because the wife's payment from marital earnings was not sufficiently extraordinary or unconnected to the marital relationship to warrant special equity treatment.
[1] A court may award a spouse's interest in the marital domicile as lump sum alimony upon a sufficient showing of necessity, even if the other spouse has slightly higher inc…
[2] A special equity in real estate held as tenants by the entireties may be awarded to a spouse who makes an unrebutted showing that all consideration for the property was s…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 spouse could obtain a special equity in real estate held as tenants by the entireties by making an unrebutted showing that all the consideration for the property had been supplied by that spouse from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship”
Establishes the legal standard for obtaining special equity in property held as tenants by the entireties, drawn from Ball v. Ball precedent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties dissolved a 36-year marriage. Both parties were retired, with the wife's income and assets slightly exceeding the husband's. The wife had …
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 Tenants By The Entireties cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1120] GRIMES, Chief Judge.
In the course of dissolving the parties’ thirty-six year marriage, the court awarded the husband’s interest in the marital domicile to the wife as lump sum alimony and awarded her a special equity in his interest in a vacant lot in Vero Beach. The husband asserts that he is entitled to an undivided one-half interest in these properties since title to both was held as tenants by the entireties. There is no cross-appeal from the denial of the wife’s claim for periodic alimony.
The parties have retired. Despite the fact that both the wife’s income and her assets slightly exceed that of her husband, we believe that it was within the court’s discretion to award the wife the husband’s interest in the marital home. Testimony concerning the wife’s bad health made a sufficient showing of necessity for lump sum alimony to meet the test of Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1976).
On the other hand, we think the court erred in awarding the wife a special equity in the husband’s interest in the Vero Beach lot. It is true that the wife paid for the lot, but this was from income she had earned during the marriage. In Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976), the supreme court noted that a spouse could obtain a special equity in real estate held as tenants by the entireties by making an unrebutted showing that all the consideration for the property had been supplied by that spouse from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship. By way of footnote the court said that ordinarily a special equity would not arise where the property was acquired with funds generated by a working spouse while the other spouse performed normal household and child-rearing responsibilities. We do not read this footnote to mean that where both husband and wife work and the wife pays for the property while the husband’s earnings go to the support of the family, the wife’s contribution should be deemed unconnected with the marital relationship.
Thus, we hold that in this case even though the wife paid for the lot, her contribution was not so extraordinary when viewed in light of all the evidence as to meet the traditional criteria for the award of a special equity. Cf. Green v. Green, 228 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), which represents a good example of a case which cried out for the imposition of a special equity.
We reverse the award of a special equity in the husband’s interest in the Vero Beach lot, but in all other respects, we affirm the final judgment.
SCHEB and OTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976)
- Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1976)
- Green v. Green, 228 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)