JUDITH FARAH, APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERT FARAH, 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, Judith Farah appealed a final judgment dissolving her marriage, challenging the trial court's award of special equity in jointly owned property to her former husband, denial of her exclusive use and possession of the property, and the adequacy of alimony. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Ball v. Ball principles applied to the property regardless of when title was acquired, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on the alimony issue.
The court affirmed all aspects of the trial court's judgment. The Ball v. Ball principles apply to property acquired before the Ball decision was issued, making the acquisition date irrelevant. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding special equity to the husband or in determining alimony.
[1] A special equity may be awarded in jointly owned property when the consideration for the purchase was supplied by one spouse from funds unconnected with the marriage and…
[2] The principles established in Ball v. …
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“the trial court erred as a matter of law in applying the principles established in Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976), since title to the condominium was acquired prior to the date of the Ball decision”
Statement of appellant's principal argument regarding retroactive application of Ball principles
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 purchased a condominium in 1975 and took title as tenants by the entirety. The trial court found that the husband supplied all considerati…
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 Gift Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge.
Judith Farah contends that the trial court, in entering a final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage, erred (1) in awarding her former husband a special equity in certain jointly owned property, (2) in failing to award her exclusive use and possession of the jointly owned property, and (3) in failing to provide her with adequate alimony, both as to the type and amount. We find that no error has been demonstrated in any of these respects, and affirm.
The jointly owned property was a condominium purchased in 1975, the title to which was placed in the parties joint names as tenants by the entirety. The court found that all of the consideration for the purchase of the condominium was supplied by the husband from funds derived from a source totally unconnected with the marriage, and that in placing the title in the parties’ joint names, the husband had not intended to make a gift to the wife of a one-half interest in the property. These two factual findings are amply supported by competent substantial evidence. The principal thrust of appellant’s argument is that the trial court erred as a matter of law in applying the principles established in Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976), since title to the condominium was acquired prior to the date of the Ball decision. While candidly recognizing that the case of Laws v. Laws, 364 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) had decided this issue adversely to the position she advocated, appellant cited as authority Wright v. Wright, 388 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), Hart v. Hart, 377 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), and Parramore v. Parramore, 368 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) in support of her position. At the time this case was submitted on oral argument, appellant’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.
On the other issues raised by appellant, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robertson v. Robertson, 569 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…ent at the time the marital home was jointly titled. Therefore, because the trial court’s ruling that the husband intended to give the wife a one-half interest in the marital home is not “supported by competent substantial evidence,” Farah v. Farah, 424 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), we reverse that part of [*853] the final judgment which denies the husband a special equity in the marital home. REVERSED AND REMANDED. DELL, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.…
-
Freeman v. Freeman, 478 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976); McIntyre v. McIntyre, 434 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Farah v. Farah, 424 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- 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)
- Wright v. Wright, 422 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1982)