MARTHA JANE LOVEJOY
v.
RALPH M. LOVEJOY
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a divorce decree, finding that the grounds for divorce were proven and that property purchased solely with the husband's funds and placed in joint names was not a gift to the wife.
No, the chancellor did not err. The grounds for divorce were proven, and the presumption of a gift to the wife regarding the jointly titled property was overcome by evidence.
“It is our conclusion that the chancellor did not err in finding the equities to be with the appellee and against the appellant and that the grounds alleged for divorce had been proven.”
Establishes the court's agreement with the lower court's findings on the divorce grounds.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought a divorce from the appellee. The chancellor found the equities favored the appellee and that the grounds for divorce were proven.…
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.
It is our conclusion that the chancellor did not err in finding the equities to be with the appellee and against the appellant and that the grounds alleged for divorce had been proven. See Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071, 138 So. 796; McMillan v. McMillan, 120 Fla. 209, 162 So. 524. It is also our conclusion that with respect to certain property purchased entirely with the husband’s funds and placed in the joint names of both husband and wife, the presumption of a gift to the wife has been overcome by conclusive evidence within the purview of Kollar v. Kollar, 155 Fla. 705, 21 So. (2nd) 356, and that accordingly the case, on this point, is ruled by Hargett v. Hargett, 156 Fla. 730, 24 So. (2nd) 305.
The decree appealed from is affirmed.
TERRELL, CHAPMAN, ADAMS, SEBRING,. and BARNS, J.J., concur.
THOMAS, C. J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
HOBSON, J., not participating.
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I cannot agree to the ruling that the estates -by the entirety should be upset because the husband, 53 years old with enough business acumen to amass a fortune, didn’t know what he was doing.
THOMAS, C. J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I cannot agree to the ruling that the estates -by the entirety should be upset because the husband, 53 years old with enough business acumen to amass a fortune, didn’t know what he was doing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Holmes v. The Atl. Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville, 103 Fla. 1071 (Fla. 1932)
- Kollar v. Kollar, 155 Fla. 705 (Fla. 1945)
- Rosalind E. Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071 (Fla. 1932)
- McMillan v. McMillan, 120 Fla. 209 (Fla. 1935)
- Hargett v. Weldon R. Hargett, 156 Fla. 730 (Fla. 1946)