WINIFRED B. SHANNON, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD M. SHANNON, 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.
In this divorce case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court decree that awarded the wife a divorce and alimony but failed to adjudicate her claimed special equity in a used car sales and finance business valued at approximately $75,000. The court held that a wife who makes material contributions to property accumulated during marriage acquires a special equity entitling her to an award upon divorce, which cannot be satisfied by alimony alone.
The trial court erred by failing to adjudicate whether the wife acquired a special equity in the business property and, if so, the extent thereof. A wife who makes material contributions to property accumulated during marriage acquires a special equity entitling her to an award upon divorce. This special equity is distinct from and cannot be satisfied by an alimony award alone.
“It is the settled law of this jurisdiction that when a wife has made a material contribution to the husband's acquisition of property during coverture, she acquires a special equity in the property so accumulated, which equity entitles her, upon divorce, to an award in satisfaction thereof.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that wives have a special equity right in property accumulated during marriage based on material contributions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWinifred and Edward Shannon were married and operated a used car sales and finance business as partners during their marriage. Prior to separation, Ed…
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 Consideration For Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final decree entered by the Circuit Court of Duval County» granting appellant’s counterclaim for divorce. The principal error assigned is the Chancellor’s failure to adjudicate that portion of the counterclaim wherein appellant specifically alleged a special equity in certain property accumulated by the parties during their marriage. Both the complaint filed by the husband, and the answer and counterclaim filed by the wife, prayed for divorce and for an equitable division of all real and personal property owned by the parties. In addition to other properties listed in her counterclaim, appellant specifically asserted an equitable interest in a used car sales and finance business purchased and operated by the parties as a partnership for a number of years prior to their separation. In his answer to the counterclaim the husband denied that his wife owned any interest in the partnership business and alleged that she had released and assigned her interests to him in accordance with an agreement reached by them prior to their separation.
At the trial of the cause the husband acknowledged that the foregoing release agreement was without consideration, and was made on his representation to the wife that she would continue to own one-half of “everything” he had. The testimony of accountants who were called as witnesses indicate the value-of the business assets to be approximately $75,000.
*429By his- decree, the Chancellor granted a divorce to the wife, awarded her custody of and support for the minor children, and alimony. The decree also provided for an equitable division of certain properties, title to which was held by the entireties, but is entirely silent as to the wife’s alleged interest in the used car sales and finance business. The Chancellor made no findings or adjudication as to whether the wife did or did not have any interest in this business, nor the extent of such interest, if, indeed, there was any.
It is the settled law of this jurisdiction that when a wife has made a material contribution to the husband’s acquisition of property during coverture, she acquires a special equity in the property so accumulated, which equity entitles her, upon divorce, to an award in satisfaction thereof.1 Further, there is a distinction between such a special equity and the wife’s entitlement to alimony.2 An award of alimony will not suffice as a substitute for a wife’s special equity in her husband’s property,3 nor will her failure to qualify for alimony bar her from recovering any special interest to which she may be entitled.4
We are of the view that the Chancellor should have adjudicated the issue as to whether the wife had acquired a special equity in the business property of her husband, and if so, the extent thereof. Had the Chancellor found such an equity to exist, the decree should have provided for an award to the wife of the value of her interest, to be paid in such manner as the Chancellor may direct. The decree appealed from is not clear as to the wife’s alleged equity, and for that reason the cause is reversed with directions accordingly.5 In all other respects the decree appealed from is affirmed.
STURGIS, C. J., and L. L. FABISIN-SKI, A. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spears v. Spears, 148 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)…ial contribution to the acquisition of property by her husband acquires a special interest therein, and upon divorce is entitled to an award in satisfaction thereof. Chaachou v. Chaachou (Fla.1961), 135 So. 2d 206; Shannon v. Shannon (Fla.App.1958), 101 So. 2d 428; Foreman v. Foreman (Fla.1949), 40 So. 2d 560; Parsons v. Parsons, 154 Fla. 299, 17 So. 2d 223; Engebretsen v. Engebretsen, 151 Fla. 372, 11 So. 2d 322; Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So. 2d 727; Windham v. Windham, 144 Fla. 563, 198 So. 202; Ca…
-
Henderson v. Henderson, 226 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…a final judgment settles all of the property rights of the parties and bars any future action brought by either party to determine his or her respective property rights. Dockery v. Dockery, Fla.1949, 43 So. 2d 460; Shannon v. Shannon, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 428. The final judgment is reversed with directions to enter judgment in favor of the wife as to such special interests and equities as she may be entitled, if any, under the evidence. In all other respects the final judgment appealed from is affirmed.…
-
Guenevere Jennings v. Jennings, 341 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…olution settles all property rights of the parties and thereafter bars any action to determine the question of property rights. Finston v. Finston, 160 Fla. 935, 37 So. 2d 423 (1948); Dockery v. Dockery, 43 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1949); Shannon v. Shannon, 101 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). This principle has been tempered in recent years by allowing a specific reservation of jurisdiction to later determine property rights after dissolution of the marriage. Farr v. Farr, 249 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Kipnis v.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holmes v. The Atl. Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville, 103 Fla. 1071 (Fla. 1932)
- Rosalind E. Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071 (Fla. 1932)
- Howard v. State, 78 Fla. 388 (Fla. 1919)
- Welsh v. Welsh, 160 Fla. 380 (Fla. 1948)
- The State of Fla. Upon Relation of Charles T. Dyess v. Pellam, 78 Fla. 252 (Fla. 1919)
- Foreman v. Foreman, 40 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1949)
- Dockery v. Dockery, 43 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1949)
- Howell v. Howell, 100 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1958)