RUTH B. LYONS, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES H. LYONS, 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 held that a certificate of deposit funded entirely by a spouse's inheritance, even if initially placed in joint names for testamentary purposes, is a nonmarital asset if not commingled with marital funds and the intent of a gift is rebutted.
The wife inherited $50,000 and placed it in a certificate of deposit. She later reissued the CD in her name alone, testifying it was for testamentary …
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 Presumption Of Gift cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Acting Chief Judge.
The wife appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and challenges the trial court’s scheme of equitable distribution. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
In controversy are two certificates of deposit and one share of stock. The trial court determined all were marital assets. We agree as to the one share of stock in Charles H. Lyons Used Cars, Inc., and to certificate of deposit B74062 in the approximate value of $20,000 and affirm as to these assets. We disagree and reverse as to certificate of deposit B747466 in the approximate amount of $50,000, which the wife derived by inheritances.
Although the wife originally placed the $50,000 certificate of deposit in joint names in 1982, it was never commingled with marital assets. In January of 1994, she had the certificate reissued in her name alone. The wife testified that she placed the husband’s name on the certificate solely for testamentary purposes with no intent of a gift. Her testimony is unrebutted. Cf. Robinson v. Robinson, 655 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA) (funds treated as marital property because wife failed to rebut presumption that she made a gift to husband when her nonmarital funds were commingled in accounts with marital funds), review denied, 663 So. 2d 631 (Fla.1995). We hold that the $50,000 certificate of deposit, funded entirely by the wife’s inheritances, is the wife’s nonmarital asset. See § 61.075(5)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994).
Because our holding affects the trial court’s overall scheme of equitable distribution, we reverse and remand to permit the trial court to reconsider the matter of equitable distribution in its entirety.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
QUINCE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grieco v. Grieco, 917 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…o and James Rhett Brigman, A Seven-Step Analysis of Equitable Distribution in Florida Part I: Classification and Valuation of Marital Property, 73 Pla. B.J. 62, May 1999 (citing Farrior v. Farrior, 712 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Lyons v. Lyons, 687 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Archer v. Archer, 712 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Spielberger v. Spielberger, 712 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). Here, the marital efforts factor does not apply; any increase in the value of the inherited funds resulted fr…
-
Pinder v. Pinder, 750 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…withdrew money, which was then used for marital purposes, the withdrawn money became a marital asset that has been depleted. The remaining money, however, has never been commingled and retains its character as a nonmarital asset. See Lyons v. Lyons, 687 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). As to Mrs. Pinder’s fifth issue, Mr. Pin-der concedes error regarding the life insurance policies; as to those assets, we reverse. In addition, we reverse and remand for the trial court to determine whether the bank accounts are…
-
Spielberger v. Spielberger, 712 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…led and commingled funds with regards to another joint account, but the record reflects that the funds in the ChemPlus account were exclusively Husband’s. Thus, no commingling occurred to create a presumption of a gift. See generally Lyons v. Lyons, 687 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (although certificate of deposit was originally placed in parties’ joint names, because it was funded entirely by wife’s inheritance and the funds were never commingled, the CD was wife’s non-marital asset); Behrman v. Behrman, 37…
Authorities Cited
- Dyer v. State, 655 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Robinson v. Lurana Dupree Robinson, 655 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)