AUGUST H. HOCH, APPELLANT,
v.
DAWN M. HOCH, 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 this divorce case, the husband appeals the trial court's award of a $7,000 special equity to his wife in their jointly owned marital home. The appellate court reverses, holding that the wife's mortgage payments came from earnings during the marriage and thus cannot support a special equity claim, but remands for the trial court to consider alternative remedies.
The court reversed the special equity award, holding that the wife's funds used for mortgage payments came from earnings during the marriage and thus were not from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship, which is required to establish a special equity.
[1] A special equity in marital property may be created by an unrebutted showing that one spouse supplied all of the consideration for the property from a source clearly unco…
[2] A special equity will not arise when property is acquired from funds earned by one spouse during the marriage while the other spouse performs normal household and child-r…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 special equity may be created by an unrebutted showing that one spouse supplied all of the consideration for property held as tenants by the entireties from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship”
States the legal standard for establishing a special equity claim in marital property.
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, married for twelve years with no children at home, purchased their current home as tenants by the entireties using $600 from the wife's p…
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 Special Equity Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Chief Judge.
The husband appeals from that portion of a final judgment of dissolution which awarded his wife a $7,000 special equity in his interest in the jointly owned marital home.
The parties who are in their late forties have been married for twelve years. There are no children living at home. The husband earns a weekly net income of $153.46 as a marriage counsellor while the wife earns a weekly net income of $107.82 as a registrar at a junior high school.
At the time of the marriage, the wife owned a house which she sold. She and her husband used the $600 in proceeds from that sale together with $1,000 borrowed from her brother to purchase a second home. During this period, the husband was having problems with alcoholism and failed to keep up the mortgage payments. As a result, the parties lost their home and received no money from the sale. They then bought a third home which they presently own as tenants by the entireties. The wife has made practically all of the mortgage payments on this home.
However, the husband has paid many other bills incurred by the family. The court granted no alimony but awarded the wife a $7,000 special equity in the marital home, which was over and above the one half interest she obtained upon dissolution.
In Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976), our supreme court held that a special equity may be created by an unrebutted showing that one spouse supplied all of the consideration for property held as tenants by the entireties from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship. On the other hand, a special equity will not arise when a couple acquires the property from funds earned by one spouse during the course of the marriage while the other spouse performs normal household and child rearing responsibilities. Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla.1980).
Also, where both husband and wife work and the wife pays for the property while the husband’s earnings go toward the support of the family, the wife’s contribution cannot be deemed unconnected with the marital relationship so as to entitle her to a special equity. Fiedler v. Fiedler, 375 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
This record clearly reflects that none of the funds which the wife spent on the marital home came from a source unconnected with the marital relationship. Although some of the money which she originally put into the first house might be traced into the second, these funds were lost at foreclosure. Moreover, all the funds she used to make the mortgage payments on the third home came from her earnings while the parties were married.
The judgment awarding the wife a $7,000 special equity in the husband’s one-half interest in the marital home is reversed. We are mindful, however, of the recent admonishment by our supreme court that the several remedies available to a trial judge to apportion assets and to provide support incident to dissolution are interrelated and should not be viewed independently. Canakaris v. Canakaris No. 54,124 (Fla. Jan. 31, 1980). Accordingly, we remand the case so that the trial court can have the opportunity to consider the imposition of such other remedies as may be necessary to equitably conclude this dissolution proceeding.
SCHEB and OTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bullard v. Altha Elaine Bullard, 413 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…“. . . in cases of estates by the entirety, the tenants, upon dissolution of marriage, shall become tenants in common.” See: Gorman v. Gorman, 400 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Holbrook v. Holbrook, 383 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Hoch v. Hoch, 380 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Simpson v. Simpson, 372 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). By his second point, the husband alleges the trial court erred in denying his prayer for partition. We find this point to be without merit. First of all, the husband conce…
-
Tommaney v. Willa Brown Tommaney, 405 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…wife earned more than her husband. See Holbrook v. Holbrook, 383 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Nor is it a case in which the wife contributed her earnings to the purchase of a home and the husband used his to support the family. See Hoch v. Hoch, 380 So. 2d 499 (Fla.2d DCA 1980). Here, not only did Mrs. Tommaney earn the most income while performing the duties of a housewife, she also paid for the home, provided most of the support for the family, and enabled her husband to meet his child support obligatio…
-
Hiler v. Hiler, 442 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…. [sic] in cases of estates by the entirety, the tenants, upon dissolution of marriage shall become tenants in common.” See: Gorman v. Gorman, 400 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Holbrook v. Holbrook, 383 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Hoch v. Hoch, 380 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Simpson v. Simpson, 372 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Id. at 1239. Under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the husband’s one-half interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony. Bullard…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976)
- Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1980)
- Chiappa v. State, 375 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)