BEATRICE E. BRUNNER
v.
E. C. BRUNNER
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 Florida Supreme Court addressed whether Government Bonds worth $2,500 in the husband's possession should be treated as marital property (estate by the entireties) or his separate property. The Court held that the chancellor's silence on the disposition of the bonds in the final decree meant the master's recommendation regarding them was overruled, allowing the husband to retain possession.
The Court held that the chancellor's failure to include a specific order regarding the disposition of the bonds in the final decree constituted an overruling of the master's report on that point, thereby allowing the husband to retain possession of the bonds he claimed were purchased with his separate funds.
“To change his legal status in respect thereto a specific decree was essential.”
Establishes the principle that property disposition requires an explicit judicial order, not mere silence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring divorce proceedings, a special master found that the appellant (husband) had $2,500 in Government Bonds in his possession, which the master sta…
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 Separate Property cases and more on FLexlaw
It is true that the master made a finding that the appellant had in his possession Government Bonds in the sum of $2500.00 and it was stated by the master that'they “would be considered as owned by the parties as an estate by the entireties.”
One of the several exceptions of the plaintiff-appellant-husband respecting the masters report was:
“Said conclusions should be that the charge of adultery is sufficiently proven and sustained by competent proofs offered. Said $2,500.00 in bonds in possession of plaintiff, having been purchased with the money of plaintiff, is his separate property and should be retained by him as an offset pro tanto of government bonds and cash squandered by defendant.”
The Chancellor by his final decree recited that
“(4) The report of the Special Master in Chancery, John C. Gramling, is accepted, approved, ratified and confirmed, except as to the portion of the same which is overruled in this decree” — and did thereupon “decree” among other things that
“(2) the report of the special master in Chancery, John C. Gramling, is accepted, approved, ratified and confirmed,, except as the same is overruled and departed from herein.”
*861It appears from such decree that the Chancellor made no order and intended to make none, disturbing Dr. Brunner’s possession of the $2500.00 in U. S. Bonds. He had them when the suit started and the Chancellor did nothing to interfere with his possession of what he claimed his money paid for. To change his legal status in respect thereto a specific decree was essential. The decree being silent on the point, the master’s report with respect to the disposition to be made of the bonds was “overruled and departed from” in the decree.
The Chancellor’s final decree was appealed by the wife and was affirmed except as to an enlargement of alimony. See Brunner v. Brunner 159 Fla. 762, 32 So. (2nd) 736. This act of enlargement of alimony was not made conclusive for all time but prompted by equitable consideration of the transitional shift in the affairs of her life then transpiring by reason of the divorce decree.
TERRELL, CHAPMAN, ADAMS, BARNS, SEBRING and HOBSON, JJ. concur.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
THOMAS, C. J., dissents.