BOLES
v.
BOLES
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 reviewed a divorce decree's property distribution. While affirming most of the decree, the court reversed the specific division of jointly owned lots, holding they should be treated as a tenancy in common after divorce.
The court held that the trial court erred in ordering a quitclaim of specific lots between the parties. Because these lots were purchased with joint funds and titled jointly, they constituted an estate by the entireties, which should have been treated as a tenancy in common upon divorce.
“We think that part of the final decree requiring plaintiff to quitclaim defendant her interest in Lots 21 and 22, Block 2, Glendale and requiring defendant to quitclaim the plaintiff his interest in Lots 26 and 27, Block 2, Glendale, was error.”
Identifies the specific part of the decree that the court found to be erroneous.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a divorce, a Master recommended and the final decree ordered a division of jointly purchased lots (Lots 21, 22, 26, 27) by requiring each sp…
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 Property Division cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
Appellee sued appellant for divorce and for division of certain real and personal property, a portion of the realty being owned as an estate by the entireties.
At final hearing the Master found that Lots 21, 22, 26, and 27, Block 2, Glendale, Jacksonville, Duval County were purchased jointly by plaintiff and defendant.
He recommended that plaintiff be required to quitclaim defendant, within five days, all her right, title and interest to Lots 21 and 22 so described and that defendant be required to quitclaim plaintiff within five days, all his right, title and interest to Lots 26 and 27 so described.
The final decree granted the divorce, approved the recommendation of the Master as to the lots of land described in the preceding paragraph, taxed costs of the suit to defendant and required him to pay certain fees to the Special Master and the complainant's solicitor, including alimony payments to complainant.
This appeal is from that part of the final decree making distribution of the property.
That part granting the divorce is not assaulted.
Appellant contends that the parties had been living together as husband and wife for seventeen years, that he had contributed large sums of money to the improvement of lands owned by plaintiff at the time of their marriage, that he contributed to the purchase and improvement of the lands purchased after their marriage and that in view of this and other contributions made by him to the common estate, the division made by the final decree was inequitable and unjust.
We have examined these contentions and find that they were all decided against appellant on evidence that was conflicting but ample to sustain the chancellor's decree.
We find no reason to reverse the decree except as to distribution of Lots 21, 22, 26, and 27, Block 2, Glendale, Jacksonville.
We think that part of the final decree requiring plaintiff to quitclaim defendant her interest in Lots 21 and 22, Block 2, Glendale and requiring defendant to quitclaim the plaintiff his interest in Lots 26 and 27, Block 2, Glendale, was error. These properties were purchased by the joint funds of the parties and title to them was taken in their joint names.
They constituted an estate by the entireties and on the dissolution of the marriage the parties became tenants in common as to said lots and the final decree should have so stated.
Section 689.15, F.S.A. To this extent the *872 decree appealed from is reversed.
In other respects it is affirmed.
Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So. 2d 727; Giachetti v. Giachetti, 157 Fla. 259, 25 So. 2d 658.
It follows that the decree appealed from is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
SEBRING, C.J., THOMAS, J., and MURPHREE, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Latta v. Parker A. Latta, 121 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…or will determine whether or not either party has an equitable interest in the home which must be protected. In event he finds no such equitable interest the parties will become tenants in common as provided by the statute. Boles v. Boles, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 871; Valentine v. Valentine, Fla.1950, 45 So. 2d 885. The decree of divorce entered by the chancellor recognized the wife’s right to a share in the business which she and her husband had built up. This special equity was alleged in’ the wife’s counterc…
-
Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 179 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…ce action cannot partition property owned as a tenancy by the entirety unless the pleadings pray for partition in accordance with Fla.Stat., Secs. 66.-01-66.09, F.S.A. See Latta v. Latta, Fla.App.3, 1960, 121 So. 2d 42; and Boles v. Boles, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 871. The wife in her answer and counterclaim prayed for a division of the jointly owned property, but this is not equivalent to a prayer for partition. Boles v. Boles, supra. In regard to the husband’s final point that it was error for the chancellor t…
-
Bergh v. Bergh, 127 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)…v. Latta, Fla.App.1960, 121 So. 2d 42. . Banfi v. Banfi, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 52. . Brown v. Brown, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 298. . Bell v. Bell, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 63; Reid v. Reid, Fla.1954, 68 So. 2d 821. . Boles v. Boles, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 871; Valentine v. Valentine, Fla.1950, 45 So. 2d 885.…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23 (Fla. 1941)
- Boles v. Boles, 59 So.2d 871 (Fla. 1952)
- Giachetti v. Giachetti, 157 Fla. 259 (Fla. 1946)