CHARLES E. BAYLISS, APPELLANT,
v.
BARBARA S. BAYLISS, 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 a dissolution of marriage appeal, the former husband challenges the trial court's rejection of his special equity claim in a jointly held stock brokerage account and the award of permanent alimony to his former wife. The appellate court reverses and remands, holding that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard that had been quashed by the state supreme court, and that special equity can be demonstrated even when jointly held property was funded by one spouse if gift intent is not established.
The court reversed the trial court's finding that no special equity was demonstrated, holding that the legal standard applied by the trial court had been quashed by the state supreme court. A special equity can be established by showing that all consideration for jointly held property was supplied by one spouse from a source unconnected with the marriage, and such special equity can only be defeated by evidence that a gift was actually intended at the time of transfer, not by a presumption of gift arising from the establishment of joint ownership.
[1] A presumption of gift arises when a spouse places previously owned funds into a jointly held stock brokerage account, but this presumption can be overcome by clear and co…
[2] A special equity in jointly held property may be established by demonstrating that all consideration for the property was supplied by one spouse from a source unconnected…
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“when the husband established the jointly-owned stock account, a presumption arose that any funds therein previously owned by him and placed in the account constituted a gift to the wife”
Describes the incorrect legal standard applied by the trial court that the appellate court found to be error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring the marriage, the husband established a jointly-owned stock brokerage account and placed funds therein that he had previously owned. The trial …
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 Presumption Of Gift cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Chief Judge.
The former husband appeals from the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, contending that the trial court erred in failing to recognize his special equity in a jointly held stock brokerage account, and in awarding permanent alimony to the wife.
The trial court, relying on this court’s opinion in Wright v. Wright, 388 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (Wright I), held when the husband established the jointly-owned stock account, a presumption arose that any funds therein previously owned by him and placed in 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 the jointly held property was supplied by one spouse from a source clearly unconnected with the marriage relationship, but that a special equity could be defeated by contradictory evidence that a gift was intended at the time of the transfer. See also, Marsh v. Marsh, 419 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1982). We must, therefore, reverse the trial court’s determination that no special equity was demonstrated, and remand the cause for reconsideration of this issue in the light of the principles expressed in Wright II.
Because we reverse the final judgment on the special equity issue, we make no determination on the correctness of appellant’s argument that the award to the wife of permanent periodic alimony was error. Because the trial court will be required to reexamine the issue of ownership of the securities account, and because property distribution and alimony awards are often interwoven, we suggest that the trial court revisit the question of alimony in the light of our recent opinion in Campbell v. Campbell, 432 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), which was not available to the trial court when the final judgment appealed from was rendered.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gardner v. Gardner, 452 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…r regards. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur. . Conner v. Conner, 439 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976). . See Bayliss v. Bayliss, 434 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Rion v. Rion, 421 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). . See Canakaris; Brown v. Brown, 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. dismissed, 307 So. 2d 186 (Fla.1975). . See DiPrima v. DiPrima, 435 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).…
-
Bayliss v. Bayliss, 472 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…COBB, Chief Judge. This case is before us for the second time. See Bayliss v. Bayliss, 434 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Our prior opinion reversed the trial court’s determination that there was a presumption of gift in respect to funds previously owned by the husband which were placed in a jointly owned stock account. See Wright v. Wright, 422 So…
Authorities Cited
- Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976)
- Marsh v. Laurel J. Ising Marsh, 419 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1982)
- Campbell v. Chalermsri V. Campbell, 432 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Wright v. Wright, 388 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Wright v. Wright, 422 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1982)