GAYNELL V. SHARPE, APPELLANT,
v.
VICTOR V. SHARPE, JR., 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of alimony and child support but reversed as to the treatment of marital property, requiring the trial court to recognize the wife's special equity in funds she had advanced during the marriage and to reconsider alimony in light of that equity.
The wife had a special equity in the amount of $6,880 plus interest at 6% annually from the date of advancement, and the trial court erred by failing to award her this amount. The trial court was directed to reconsider the alimony award in light of this equity, though the original alimony determination was not per se an abuse of discretion.
“the law is that where a wife advances money to the husband for his use, the wife has a special equity, or the transaction may be construed a loan between the parties”
Establishes the legal principle protecting the wife's right to restitution for funds advanced during marriage
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring the marriage in August 1959, the husband and wife purchased a grove with two other parties for $15,543.38. The wife paid $6,880 of the purchase…
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 Special Equity Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
The Appellant seeks reversal of a part of a Final Decree entered by the Court, in which Decree the Appellant, as Plaintiff below, was awarded a decree of divorce from Appellee.
The Final Decree stated, among other things, that Plaintiff, below, was entitled to a divorce, that she be awarded custody of the children, and that Defendant, below, be required to pay $300.00 per month as alimony, and $175.00 per month child support.
During the marriage in August of 1959, a grove was purchased by the parties, and by Warren and Mary Ellen Randell; the purchase price was $15,543.38, and the Plaintiff below paid out $6,880.00 on the purchase from funds the husband had no interest in, in fact trust funds held for her children from a previous marriage. The grove was subsequently sold for $45,000.00, from which the Defendant husband received one-half the proceeds, and the Plaintiff wife received nothing.
The testimony shows that the Defendant testified that the proceeds of the sale were used to pay household bills and expenses. It should be pointed out that the husband paid nothing he was not otherwise obligated to pay.
The law is that where a wife advances money to the husband for his use, the wife has a special equity, or the transaction may be construed a loan between the parties. Parsons v. Parsons, 154 Fla. 299, 17 So.2d 223; Dupree v. Dupree, 156 Fla. 455, 23 So.2d 554; Markland v. Markland, 155 Fla. 629, 21 So.2d 145.
In either event, the Court below should have awarded the Plaintiff below, the sum of $6,880.00, which she advanced, plus interest at the rate of 6% a year, from the date of her advance of the monies.
The law is equally clear that whether alimony should be awarded and, if so, the amount of it rests within the sound judicial discretion of the Chancellor, and his determination will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion, which has not been shown here.
There is no showing in the record of any error in the granting or the amount of child support allowed below.
The cause is remanded, with directions to the Chancellor to;
1. Find a special equity or loan in favor of the wife to the extent of $6,880.00, plus interest, from the date of the advancement.
2. Since the Chancellor in his decree stated he had taken this advancement into consideration in determining alimony, the Chancellor should at the same time reconsider the amount of alimony if he feels that equity and justice so demand.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part, with directions.
PIERCE, Acting C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ryan v. Ryan, 277 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1973)…llemore v. Gallemore, 94 Fla. 516, 114 So. 371 (1927) ; and Posner v. Posner, 233 So. 2d 381 (Fla.1970). . Job 1:21. . Carlton v. Carlton, 78 Fla. 252, 83 So. 87 (1919) ; Markland v. Markland, 155 Fla. 629, 21 So. 2d 145 (1945) ; Sharpe v. Sharpe, 202 So. 2d 822 (Fla.App.2d 1967). . Tibbetts v. Olson, 91 Fla. 824, 108 So. 679 (1926) ; State ex rel. Barancik v. Gates, 134 So. 2d 497 (Fla.1961). . Wilensky v. Fields, 267 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1972) ; Gleason v. Gleason, 26 N.Y.2d 28, 308 N.Y.S.2d 347, 256 N.E. 2d 5…
-
Berman v. Rae Berman, 211 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…. 672, 3 So. 2d 375; Dupree v. Dupree, 1945, 156 Fla. 455, 23 So. 2d 554; Pinkas v. Fiveash, Fla.App.1961, 126 So. 2d 910; Dings v. Dings, Fla.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 227; Alvarez v. Dumont, Fla.App.1965, 178 So. 2d 352; Sharpe v. Sharpe, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 822.…
-
Hudson v. Hudson, 226 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…cile of the parties and of the amount awarded the wife for alimony and attorney’s fees. The record contains substantial competent evidence to sustain the trial court’s finding of a special equity in favor of the wife, Sharpe v. Sharpe, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 822. Likewise, there is a substantial evidentiary basis for the award of alimony and attorney’s fees to the wife and there being no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in regard to these items, they will not be disturbed on appeal. Bencom…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Markland v. Markland, 155 Fla. 629 (Fla. 1945)
- Parsons v. Tunis Waldon Parsons, JR., 154 Fla. 299 (Fla. 1944)
- Dupree v. Talmadge Dupree, 156 Fla. 455 (Fla. 1945)