VIRGINIA A. OLSEN, APPELLANT,
v.
SYDNEY OLSEN, 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 1967 Florida divorce case, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision regarding 400 shares of Norfolk & Western Railway stock that the wife had received from her father before marriage and later transferred into joint tenancy with her husband. The court held that transfers of a wife's separate property to a husband are not presumed to be gifts, and the husband failed to meet his burden of proving the transfer was a gift.
The court held that transfers of a wife's separate property to a husband are not presumed to be gifts, and the burden rests on the husband to establish that receipt of his wife's separate property constitutes a gift. Since the husband failed to meet this burden, the trial court erred in not restoring the 400 shares of stock to the wife as her sole property.
“As a general proposition, a transfer from a husband to a wife is presumed to be a gift.”
Establishes the foundational presumption of gift in transfers from husband to wife under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVirginia Olsen received 400 shares of Norfolk & Western Railway stock from her father prior to marriage. After marriage and the birth of children, she…
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 With Right Of Survivorship cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal involves the correctness of a chancellor’s ruling upon dissolving a marriage in refusing to restore, as the sole property of the wife, 400 shares of stock in Norfolk & Western Railway [Certificates Nos. NC 89977, NC 89978, NC 89979, NC 89980]. It is undisputed that prior to the marriage of the parties this stock was given to the appellant by her father. That, subsequent to the marriage and after the birth of the children of the parties, the appellant caused the stock to be issued to her and her husband as joint tenants with right of sur-vivorship and not as tenants in common. The wife testified that the reason for this transfer was that “in the event of my death, Mr. Olsen could use the stock certificates to pay off my estate or, you know, bury me and so forth, and for the benefit of the children.” There was no consideration for the transfer to the joint names by the husband, and the husband offered no evidence in regard to the transaction.
As a general proposition, a transfer from a husband to a wife is presumed to be a gift. See: Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So.2d 727; Anderson v. Anderson, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 24; Witlin v. Witlin, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 70; 17 Fla.Jur., Husband and Wife, § 43. The converse of this, however, is not true. A transfer from a wife to a husband of her separate property is not presumed to be a gift, and the burden is on the husband to establish the fact that the receipt of any of his wife’s separate property is in fact a gift. See: Forde v. Forde, 152 Fla. 142, 10 So.2d 919; Jones v. Jones, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 811; Allen v. Allen, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 355.
The husband made no attempt to sustain the burden of establishing that the transfer of a one-half interest in the stock was a gift and, therefore, the chancellor was in error in failing to restore the 400 shares of stock to the wife upon a dissolution of the marriage.
*865The matter is returned to the chancellor with directions to modify his final decree by establishing the wife to be the sole owner of the 400 shares of stock in Norfolk & Western Railway [Certificate Nos. NC 89977, NC 89978, NC 89979, NC 89980], and direct the appellee-husband to do those things necessary to effectuate a transfer of the stock to her.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Steinhauer v. Lossie S. Steinhauer, 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…(as joint tenants) is presumed to be a gift; whereas, a transfer from a wife to a husband (as joint tenants) of her separate property is not presumed to be a gift, the burden being on the husband to establish that fact. Olsen v. Olsen, Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 864. This presumption is seemingly premised upon the inequality of the marital partners and the subservient status of the wife. We cannot accept the concept that a wife is anything less than an equal partner with the husband in the marital relationship.…
-
Kennedy v. Kennedy, 303 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1974)…(as joint tenants) is presumed to be a gift; whereas, a transfer from a wife to a husband (as joint tenants) of her separate property is not presumed to be a gift, the burden being on the husband to establish that fact. Olsen v. Olsen, Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 864. This presumption is seemingly premised upon the inequality of the marital partners and the subservient status of the wife. We cannot accept the concept that a wife is anything less than an equal partner with the husband in the marital relationship.…
-
Madge P. Ball v. Ball, 303 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…to acquire property in which title is taken as tenants by the entirety, she is presumed to have made a gift to her husband. In years past a contrary rule obtained. Allen v. Allen, Fla.App. 2d, 1960, 123 So. 2d 355; Olsen v. Olsen, Fla.App. 3d, 1967, 195 So. 2d 864. Indeed, a counter-presumption existed, viz., that the wife’s equity from her separate estate is being held by her husband for her in trust. Pyle v. Pyle, Fla. 1951, 53 So. 2d 312; Mays v. Mays, Fla.App. 3d, 1967, 203 So. 2d 674. In 1971 our sister…
Previewing 3 of 11 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)
- Forde v. Forde, 152 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1942)
- Agatha F. Allen v. Allen, 123 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 153 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Witlin v. Witlin, 153 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Jones v. Jones, 121 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)