GEORGE C. WRIGHT, PETITIONER,
v.
RUBY M. WRIGHT, RESPONDENT
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 held that the Ball v. Ball doctrine applies to dissolution proceedings based on the date the proceeding is instituted, not the date of property conveyance. The Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether Ball's special equity doctrine applied to property conveyed before the Ball decision was rendered.
Ball v. Ball applies based on the date the dissolution proceeding is instituted, not the date of conveyance. The language in Ball indicating it would 'apply only to dissolution proceedings instituted after the date this opinion becomes final' makes the filing date of the petition for dissolution determinative. The district court erred in holding Ball inapplicable because the conveyances predated the Ball decision.
[1] The date a dissolution proceeding is instituted by the filing of a petition, not the date of conveyance, determines the applicability of a judicial decision to property d…
[2] A judicial decision in dissolution proceedings applies only to those proceedings instituted after the decision becomes final, regardless of when property was conveyed.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“apply only to dissolution proceedings instituted after the date this opinion becomes final”
Ball's explicit temporal language establishing that the relevant date is when the dissolution proceeding is instituted, not when property was conveyed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge C. Wright owned property acquired before his marriage to Ruby M. Wright, including a house in Indiana, a house in Florida, two $10,000 certific…
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 Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before the Court on petition for review of the decision below, Wright v. Wright, 388 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), which conflicts with Laws v. Laws, 364 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Petitioner George C. Wright owned a house in Florida, a house in Indiana, two certificates of deposit each in the amount of $10,000, and fifteen shares of bank stock. He acquired all of this property during a long working life and first marriage before he married respondent Ruby M. Wright. After they married, the husband conveyed the house in Indiana to the wife. He conveyed the Florida property, the two certificates of deposit, and the bank stock to himself and his wife as tenants by the entir-eties. The parties resided in the Indiana home during the summer and in the Florida home during the winter. The marriage lasted ten years.
In the dissolution proceeding, the husband asked the court to award the above-named properties to him on the ground that, since they were acquired with his separate assets before the marriage, he had a “special equity” in the property interests to which legal title was held by the wife. As the district court noted, there was no question that the properties were acquired before the marriage and that the wife made no contribution whatsoever to their acquisition. The husband testified the conveyances of the Indiana property to the wife and of the other properties to himself and his wife as tenants by the entireties were made so that his wife would have right of surviv-orship if he died. The wife testified that survivorship was never mentioned and that the conveyances to her were made so that they would own the properties “as husband and wife.”
The trial court gave effect to the record legal title to the property. He awarded the wife the Indiana property already held in her name and ordered the jointly-held properties divided between husband and wife. On appeal the husband argued that the court erred in refusing to award him a special equity in the property interests held by the wife. He based his contention on Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976).
The district court held that Ball was inapplicable because the conveyances in question were made before the Ball decision was rendered. This holding directly and expressly conflicts with Laws v. Laws, 364 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), where the Ball decision was applied in a case where the disputed property was conveyed before Ball was decided.
The district court erred in holding Ball to be inapplicable. In Ball, the Court said that in order to avoid litigation the decision would “apply only to dissolution proceedings instituted after the date this opinion becomes final.” 335 So. 2d at 8. The language indicates that the date a dissolution proceeding is instituted by the filing of a petition is dispositive. The date of the conveyance is irrelevant. The decisions on this point in Hart v. Hart, 377 So. 2d 51 (Fla.2d DCA 1979), and Parramore v. Parramore, 368 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 74 (Fla.1979), upon which the district court relied, were erroneous. The principles of Ball v. Ball, then, are fully applicable to this case since the dissolution proceeding was begun after the Ball decision became final.
The decision of the district court of appeal is therefore quashed. Having decided the legal point upon which there was conflict, we remand the case to the district court to consider the appeal in light of our holding.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD, OVER-TON and McDONALD, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Claughton v. Claughton, 483 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…the dissolution judgment converts the estate held by the entireties into tenancies held in common. Rollar; see § 689.15, Fla.Stat. (1975). Because Ball applies to dissolution proceedings instituted after it became final, Ball; see Wright v. Wright, 422 So. 2d 306 (Fla.1982) (the date the dissolution proceeding was instituted is dispositive for determining whether Ball is applicable, not the date of conveyance), the law in effect prior to Ball governs here. We must therefore decide whether the trial court’s a…
-
Bayliss v. Bayliss, 434 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…n the account constituted a gift to the wife, and that the husband had failed to overcome the presumption of gift by clear and convincing evidence. The decision relied on by the trial court was later quashed by the Supreme Court in Wright v. Wright, 422 So. 2d 306 (Fla.1982) (Wright II), in which the court reiterated the applicability of the principles expressed in Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976), that one way a special equity may be created is by an unrebut-ted showing that all of the consideration for…
-
Farah v. Farah, 424 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…nt’s counsel urged that we delay our decision pending disposition by the Supreme Court of Florida of its review of the Fifth District’s decision in Wright v. Wright, 388 So. 2d 1319. The Supreme Court has now spoken on that matter, Wright v. Wright, 422 So. 2d 306 (Fla.1982), and has expressly held that the principles announced in the Ball case are applicable to all suits filed subsequent to the date of the Ball decision, and that the date upon which the parties acquired title to the property is irrelevant.…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Laws v. Laws, 364 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Wright v. Wright, 388 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Hart v. Hart, 377 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Parramore v. Parramore, 368 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)