JAMI ROBIN GREENBERG, APPELLANT,
v.
ADAM S. GREENBERG, 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 an engagement ring given before marriage is non-marital property, even if found to be an interspousal gift.
The wife received an engagement ring from the husband about a year before marriage. Furniture purchased by the wife's parents was delivered after the …
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 Interspousal Gift cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it included the furnishings given to her by her parents and her engagement ring as marital assets in equitable distribution. We reverse and remand because her engagement ring is non-marital property.
About one year prior to marriage, appellee gave appellant a diamond engagement ring. Three months before the wedding, appellant’s parents purchased several pieces of furniture. The furniture was delivered to appellant’s apartment after the parties were married. The trial court found that appellant’s parents intended the furniture to be a gift for both parties as spouses. The court also found that the engagement ring was an interspousal gift.
First, we hold that there was competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the furniture was intended to be a wedding gift. See Gainesville Bonded Warehouse, Inc. v. Carter, 123 So. 2d 336 (Fla.1960). Next, appellee misplaces his reliance on Gill v. Shively, 320 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), because here, the parties married. The trial court should not have included the engagement ring as a marital asset. See Melvik v. Melvik, 669 So. 2d 328, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Accordingly, we reverse the equitable distribution provisions of the final judgment. We remand and instruct the trial court to conduct further hearings, if necessary, and to redistribute marital assets without inclusion of the engagement ring.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
STONE, C.J., and DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Ross v. Hayley Lisa Botha, 867 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…sband received it, adopting the order verbatim as its own. It is from this order the father appeals. The order contains several errors that, as a matter of law, require reversal, even without a transcript. See Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So. 2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Whelan v. Whelan, 736 So. 2d 732, 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The father challenges the court’s contempt and attorney’s fees holdings, the child support issues, and the manner in which the order was generated. On the contempt…
-
Baratta v. Valley OAK Homeowners' Ass'n AT THE Vineyards, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…r of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors as required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla.1985). See also Guardianship of Halpert v. Martin S. Rosenbloom, P.A., 698 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (stating that Rowe findings are mandatory). We therefore find the trial court’s “Final Judgment for Attorneys Fees and Costs” fundamentally erroneous on its face.4 See Bayer v. Global Renaissance [*1066] Arts, Inc., 869 So. 2d 12…
-
Trishia Wolfe v. Nazaire, 758 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…red findings.” Id. at 1109. It is mandatory that a trial court’s order awarding attorney’s fees set forth findings as to the time reasonably expended, the hourly rate, or other factors, if any, considered. See Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). When an order or judgment is reversed and remanded, the lower tribunal has authority to conduct further proceedings in conformity with the instruction of [*733] the appellate court. See Collins v. State, 680 So. 2d 458, 459 (Fl…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gainesville Bonded Warehouse, Inc. v. Carter, 123 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1960)
- Gill v. Shively, 320 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Melvik v. Melvik, 669 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)