MANUEL G. MANOUSOS, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORENCE A. MANOUSOS, 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 divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of Manuel Manousos's claim for special equity or ownership interest in the marital home based on a $3,000 contribution, but remanded to require his former wife to repay the $3,000 as a loan and to determine whether interest is owed.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Manousos failed to prove entitlement to special equity or ownership interest and that his former wife did not intend to make a gift of one-half interest in the home. However, the $3,000 must be recovered as a loan as the parties intended, and the trial court must determine whether interest is owed on the loan.
[1] A trial court's determination regarding special equity in a marital home is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
[2] A party seeking special equity in a marital home must prove their entitlement through evidence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 did not abuse its discretion in evaluating the conflicting evidence and ruling that Mr. Manousos did not prove he was entitled to any special equity”
Establishes the standard of review and affirms the trial court's ruling on the special equity claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManuel Manousos claimed he made a $3,000 'investment' in the marital home during the marriage. The trial court found he had proven this $3,000 contrib…
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 Loans cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Appellant Manuel Manousos appeals a portion of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage in which the trial court found he had proven a $3,000.00 “investment” in the marital home, but ruled he was not entitled to any special equity or ownership interest. Upon examination of the record, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evaluating the conflicting evidence and ruling that Mr. Manousos did not prove he was entitled to any special equity, see Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), and his former wife did not intend to make a gift to him of one-half interest in the marital home, see Marsh v. Marsh, 419 So. 2d 629, 630 (Fla.1982). We therefore affirm these rulings.
Nevertheless, that same examination of the record requires us to remand the case with directions to the court to amend the final judgment to include appropriate provisions requiring the former wife to remit to Mr. Manousos the $3,000.00 “investment.” The reason for this modification is that the trial court intended for the $3,000.00 amount to be recoverable as a loan, as admitted below by the former wife, and the evidence adduced at the final hearing supports that intended result. Sharpe v. Sharpe, 202 So. 2d 822, 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). The written judgment, apparently drafted by the former wife’s trial counsel, neglected to require the repayment of the loan and must therefore be corrected. Furthermore, the trial court is also directed on remand to conduct additional proceedings to determine whether Mr. Manousos is entitled, pursuant to the intentions of the parties, to any interest on the loan, and if so, the rate, repayment schedule, and any ar-rearages due.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the final judgment of dissolution, except as modified herein, and REMAND for proceedings consistent herewith.
OTT, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Marsh v. Laurel J. Ising Marsh, 419 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1982)
- Gaynell v. Sharpe, 202 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)