GEORGE G. JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
MAXINE JONES, 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.
The court reversed a divorce judgment that awarded the husband's entire interest in jointly-owned property to the wife, holding that while the wife has a special equity in the property, the trial court must recalculate the amount using the proper formula from Landay v. Landay.
A spouse claiming a special equity in jointly-owned marital property must have that equity calculated according to the Landay formula, not awarded in its entirety to the other spouse.
[1] A spouse's special equity in jointly-owned marital property must be calculated using the Landay formula based on the respective contributions of marital and non-marital f…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHusband and wife owned a lot and mobile home jointly. The wife paid the down payment and some mortgage payments before marriage; after marriage, both …
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 Special Equity In Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The husband appeals a final judgment which dissolved the parties’ marriage and awarded his interest in the parties’ jointly-owned lot and mobile home to the wife. We reverse.
Each party claimed a special equity in the other’s interest in the property. The wife paid the downpayment and several mortgage payments on the lot before the marriage. After the marriage the parties acquired the mobile home. It appears that each party contributed some funds from sources unconnected with the marriage toward this acquisition. It also appears that the parties made many mortgage payments on both the lot and mobile home from funds connected with the marriage. See Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976). Thus, there is sufficient evidence to support the award of a special equity to the wife, but not to the extent of the husband’s entire interest. However, on the record before us, we are unable to compute the amount of that equity. Therefore, we reverse and remand so that the trial judge may take such additional evidence as he may deem necessary to find the amount of special equity in accordance with the formula announced in Landay v. Landay, 429 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1983). We find no merit m the other issues raised by the husband..
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bobbye M. Hall v. Hall, 474 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…sary to make a finding that a gift was intended by the wife, or to determine the amount of the wife’s special equity in the savings account in accordance with the formula announced in Landay v. Landay, 429 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1983). Cf. Jones v. Jones, 467 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Rabben v. Rabben, 468 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). THOMPSON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976)
- Sumner Landay v. Landay, 429 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1983)