DAVID L. ROBERTSON, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
JOAN T. ROBERTSON, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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.
A party contributing all consideration for jointly titled property from separate assets is entitled to a special equity unless a gift is proven.
The parties stipulated that the husband paid the entire purchase price of the marital home from his premarital assets, though it was held as tenants b…
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 Tenants By The Entireties cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse that part of the trial court’s final judgment which denied David L. Robertson (Husband) a special equity in the parties’ marital home. We affirm as to the remaining points on appeal and cross-appeal.
Although the parties held the marital home as tenants by the entirety, they stipulated that the husband paid the entire purchase price of the marital home from his premarital assets. When a party proves that all of the consideration for property held as tenants by the entirety has been supplied by that party from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship, that party should be awarded the property as a special equity unless the other party proves that a gift was intended. Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976). The party disputing the existence of a special equity has the burden of proving the other party’s donative intent. Johnson v. Johnson, 454 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Thus, in the instant case the wife/appel-lee/Joan T. Robertson (“Wife”) has the burden of proving “that a gift was intended at the time the property was placed in the joint names” of the husband and wife. Laws v. Laws, 364 So. 2d 798, 801 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
The record fails to reflect that the wife proved the husband’s donative intent at the time the marital home was jointly titled. Therefore, because the trial court’s ruling that the husband intended to give the wife a one-half interest in the marital home is not “supported by competent substantial evidence,” Farah v. Farah, 424 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), we reverse that part of the final judgment which denies the husband a special equity in the marital home.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1991)…PER CURIAM. We review Robertson v. Robertson, 569 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), because of its conflict with Straley v. Frank, 15 F.L.W. 2564 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 11, 1990). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. The dispute in this dissolution proceeding concerns t…
-
Straley v. Frank, 585 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…dates of issuance, it is more probable than not that the new statute was not applicable. See Martinez v. Martinez, 573 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (involved a gift from third parties, not a spouse; thus Ball not involved); Robertson v. Robertson, 569 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (decided by appellate court December 10, 1990); Milton v. Milton, 567 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (decided by appellate court September 7, 1990); Hoffman v. Hoffman, 552 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (decided by appellate cou…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976)
- Laws v. Laws, 364 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 454 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Young v. State, 424 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Farah v. Farah, 424 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)