VALENTINE
v.
VALENTINE
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 Florida Supreme Court modified a divorce decree concerning property division, clarifying that upon divorce, property held as an estate by the entirety becomes owned by the parties as tenants in common, rather than one party buying out the other's share.
The court held that upon divorce, property held as an estate by the entirety automatically becomes property owned as tenants in common, and the decree should reflect this change in ownership status rather than ordering a buyout.
[1] Upon divorce, property held as an estate by the entireties is converted by statute into property held by the parties as tenants in common with equal shares, and the court…
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 intelligence“in cases of estates by entirety, the tenants, upon divorce, shall become tenants in common.”
This quote states the relevant statute governing property ownership after divorce for estates by the entirety.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a divorce, a chancellor decreed that the parties' former home, held as an estate by the entirety and valued at $10,231, should be owned equa…
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 Partition Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Hubbard & Carr, Miami, for appellee. THOMAS, Justice.
After a study of this case in the light of the briefs we are not disposed to interfere with the chancellor's decree, except that part of it directed to the "former home" of the parties. He found that this property was held as an estate by the entireties and was valued at $10,231. He thereupon ordered the defendant-husband to pay the plaintiff-wife one half that amount and ordered the latter to convey to the former all her interest. The statute, Section 689.15, Florida Statutes, 1941, and F.S.A., provides that "in cases of estates by entirety, the tenants, upon divorce, shall become tenants in common."
The chancellor, by his decree, severed the marriage relationship and decided that the parties owned equal interests in the estate. Once the marriage contract was dissolved and the proportionate share of each in the estate was fixed, appellant and appellee became tenants in common, and thereafter it was for them to determine whether the property should be partitioned or whether one should purchase the interest of the other.
The decree is reversed in this respect with directions to revise it so that it will provide simply that the property, held until the time of the divorce as an estate by the entireties, be owned by the parties in equal shares as tenants in common.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
ADAMS, C.J., and TERRELL and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (33 total)
-
Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, 235 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…. The property rights in the stock having been fixed by statute and settled by the final judgment, the trial court was without authority to thereafter order one of the parties to transfer his interest to the other, Valentine v. Valentine, Fla.1950, 45 So. 2d 885; Thompson v. Thompson, Fla. App.1969, 223 So. 2d 95; Brown v. Brown, Fla.App. 1960, 123 So. 2d 298. This established principle is not violated, of course, by the court’s awarding to the wife the use of the home which the parties had acquired as an e…
-
Valentine v. Valentine, 45 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1950)…45 So. 2d 885 (1950) VALENTINE v. VALENTINE. Supreme Court of Florida, Division A. April 25, 1950. *886 William J. Pruitt, Miami, for appellant. Hubbard & Carr, Miami, for appellee. THOMAS, Justice. After a study of this case in the light of the briefs we are…
-
Kosch v. Kosch, 113 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1959)…alimony upon which Section 65.15, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. could operate. See also, Rice v. Rice, 148 Fla. 620, 4 So. 2d 850; Cowen v. Cowen, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 584; Underwood v. Underwood, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 281; Valentine v. Valentine, Fla.1950, 45 So. 2d 885; Dix v. Dix, 140 Fla. 91, 191 So. 205. The confusion which apparently has arisen in cases of this type we believe has resulted from the failure to recognize the nature of the so-called “property settlement agreement”. Every agreement providing for…
Previewing 3 of 33 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Valentine v. Valentine, 45 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1950)