JOSEPHINE FLETCHER, APPELLANT,
v.
MALCOLM DOUGLASS FLETCHER, 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 appellate court affirmed a divorce decree but reversed the part that awarded the husband exclusive title to property previously held as tenants by the entireties, holding that a divorce decree converts such property into a joint tenancy with equal interests.
Yes, the trial court erred. Upon divorce, property held as tenants by the entireties is converted into a joint tenancy, with both parties having equal interests.
“A decree of absolute divorce destroys an estate by the entireties and converts the husband and wife into joint tenants, in which relation they are equally interested.”
Establishes the legal principle governing property held by the entireties upon divorce.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA husband was granted a final divorce and custody of four children. The trial court awarded him exclusive title to the family home, which the couple h…
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 Joint Tenancy cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee husband was granted a final divorce and custody of four children, aged 10, 12, 15 and 17, born as issue of the marriage. He was also vested with exclusive title to the family home which at the time of the divorce was held by the parties as tenants by the entireties.
The appellant wife insists that the equities governing the right to divorce were in her favor, that it was error to award the custody of the minors to the appellee and to award exclusive title to the mentioned real property to the appellee.
A decree of absolute divorce destroys an estate by the entireties and converts the husband and wife into joint tenants, in which relation they are equally interested. Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So.2d 727. This is in accord with F.S. 689.15, F.S.A. The trial court erred in awarding to the husband exclusive title to property held by the entireties, even though the proofs reflect that he alone contributed the funds with which to purchase the property. The presumption of a gift to the wife of her interest is not overcome.
We have considered the other points on appeal and find them without merit.
The motion of appellant for an award of fee for the services of her attorneys on this appeal will be disposed of by an administrative order.
Accordingly, the decree appealed is affirmed in part and reversed in part, as herein indicated, and the cause remanded for proceedings appropriate herewith.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
WIGGINTON, C. J. and STURGIS and CARROLL, DONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McFARLAND v. McFARLAND, 131 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…on, stated: “I cannot agree to the ruling that the estates by the entirety should be upset because the husband, 53 years old with enough business acumen to amass a fortune, didn’t know what he was doing.” In the case of Fletcher v. Fletcher, 1961, 128 So. 2d 434, 435, recently decided by the First District Court of Appeal, the court said: “A decree of absolute divorce destroys an estate by the entireties and converts the husband and wife into joint tenants, in which relation they are equally interested. St…
-
Smith v. Smith, 177 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…wife was intended. [*353] Therefore, so much of the decree as required the wife to convey her interest to the husband was erroneous. Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So. 2d 727; Powell v. Metz, Fla., 55 So. 2d 915; Fletcher v. Fletcher, Fla.App., 128 So. 2d 434. The decree should have provided that the parties hold the interest in the property as tenants in common, and should have contained an appropriate provision with regard to payments on the mortgage, taxes and other items, so that the equity of one of…
-
Wild v. Wild, 157 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)…be without substantial merit. With the single exception above stated, the remaining provisions of the decree are affirmed. STURGIS, C. J., and WIGGINTON, and RAWLS, JJ., concur. . F.S. Section 689.15, F.S.A. . Fletcher v. Fletcher (Fla.App.1961), 128 So. 2d 434; Bergh v. Bergh (Fla.App.1961), 127 So. 2d 481; Quick v. Leatherman (Fla.1957), 96 So. 2d 136.…
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
- Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23 (Fla. 1941)