GEORGE WASHINGTON MIMS, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Adkins v. Adkins, 650 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
  …s from his law practice, as well as certain other nonmarital funds. We conclude that by commingling these marital and nonmarital funds, this account became a marital account. Basham v. Basham, 541 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Terreros v. Terreros, 531 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Accordingly, (1) the $58,000 increase in equity in the home due to the mortgage payments made by the husband from this account, and (2) the enhanced value to the home of the improvements paid for by the husband from this account…
• Gilda Amato v. Amato, 596 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
  …the only such account maintained by the parties. There, each party drew upon those funds and others deposited over the years.1 Florida law is clear that funds so intermingled lose their separate identity and become untraceable. Terreros v. Terreros, 531 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Vandegrift v. Vandegrift, 477 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); and Hottman v. Hottman, 418 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Such intermingling creates a presumption that she made a gift to her husband of an undivided one-half inter…
• Heinrich v. Heinrich, 609 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
  …t presumption, the burden was on the husband to show that he was entitled to a special equity in the trust corpus under one or another of the tests set forth in the equitable distribution statute. § 61.075(7), Fla.Stat. (1991); Terreros v. Terreros, 531 So. 2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The husband argues that it was the wife’s burden to show that the John Heinrich Trust corpus was marital in nature; in reality; these assets are presumptively marital, and the burden is on the husband to show the contrary.…

  ← 1 / 2 →

Authorities Cited

• Phillips v. State, 360 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)