ROBERT H. WOLLMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
SYLVIA WOLLMAN, 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.
Robert Wollman appeals a divorce decree that awarded his wife Sylvia a one-half interest in property held in his name and monthly alimony and child support payments. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the wife proved a special equity in the property and that the alimony and support awards were supported by competent evidence.
The court affirmed all aspects of the final decree. The wife established a special equity in the property through proper pleadings and proof of her financial contributions. The awards of attorneys' fees and alimony/child support were supported by sufficient, competent evidence. The husband's refusal to answer interrogatories on self-incrimination grounds did not entitle him to denial of affirmative relief.
[1] A wife may be awarded a special equity in property if she advances money to her husband for business use or property purchase, provided proper pleadings and sufficient pr…
[2] A husband's admission that marital property is jointly owned can support a finding of a wife's special equity in that property.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If a wife advances money to her husband for use in his business or for the purchase of property she may, upon proper pleadings and sufficient and proper proof, be awarded a special equity therein.”
Establishes the legal standard for awarding a wife a special equity in property held in the husband's name when she has contributed funds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert and Sylvia Wollman divorced. During marriage, the wife contributed money to her husband's business and property acquisitions. The trial court a…
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 Child Support Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
The husband Robert H. Wollman appeals from a final decree of divorce which granted him a divorce from his wife, Sylvia, but awarded her a one-half interest in certain property which was held solely in his name. He has appealed and the wife has cross-assigned certain ruling of the trial judge as error.
The record on appeal reveals that the wife met her burden of proof in establishing a special equity in this particular property. See Lindley v. Lindley, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 17; and Tanner v. Tanner, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 702.
The husband admitted that “they both owned everything” referring to their interest in marital property and that there was no distinction between what they owned.
If a wife advances money to her husband for use in his business or for the *316purchase of property she may, upon proper pleadings and sufficient and proper proof, be awarded a special equity therein. See Parsons v. Parsons, 154 Fla. 299, 17 So.2d 223 (1944); Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So.2d 727 (1941); Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071, 138 So. 796 (1932); Green v. Green, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 112; Volpe v. Volpe, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 534; Perine v. Perine, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 71; Wood v. Wood, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 879; and 10 Fla.Jur. Divorce, Etc., § 208. Appellant’s argument for reversal on this point is insufficient.
Appellant husband argues that error was made in the award of attorneys’ fees by the trial court for services rendered to the wife by her counsel. We have examined the record and briefs and find this point insufficient to warrant reversal.
The husband’s last point for reversal is that there was error made in the final decree by the award to the wife of $200 per month as alimony. This is so he reasons because when the $200 alimony is added to the $350 per month he is required to pay as support for his two minor children it far exceeds his ability to pay. The wife has cross-assigned as error the order of the trial court which reduced a temporary award to her of $681 per month for alimony and child support to $550 per month for alimony and child support granted by the final decree of divorce.
There is sufficient, competent evidence in the record to sustain the award of alimony and child support granted and awarded by the trial judge in the final decree.
The wife has filed a cross-assignment of error arguing that the husband refused to answer an interrogatory or certain questions on the ground that his answers might be self-incriminating and he should, therefore, be denied any affirmative relief. We have previously ruled on this question in Simkins v. Simkins, Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 724 and adhere to that decision.
The final decree is
Affirmed.
(dissenting in part).
I respectfully dissent from so much of the majority opinion as found that the wife had a special equity in the stock and corporate notes owned by the husband.
I do not think the evidence is sufficient to support a tracing of the small funds that the wife contributed to the joint account, from which the parties lived, into the acquisition of the stock. The wife conceded that she contributed to the joint account in the early years of their marriage to meet the necessary marital expenses. The funds, at all times, were co-mingled and I find nothing in the record which indicates that the wife is in any position to contend that the funds taken from the joint account by the husband and invested in the stock in his own name were one-half her funds rather than his. The record reveals that the vast majority of the funds contributed to the joint account, from which the stock was purchased, were his funds.
From the cases, it appears the burden of proof upon a wife to sustain a special equity is “to establish, to the exclusion of reasonable doubt, that [she] had acquired either a legal or equitable interest in the [property]”. Lindley v. Lindley, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 17; Tanner v. Tanner, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 702. Applying this test to the evidence in the case under consideration, I fail to find that the wife established any special equity and, therefore, would reverse this aspect of the final judgment of divorce here under review. In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.
BARKDULL, Judge
(dissenting in part).
I respectfully dissent from so much of the majority opinion as found that the wife had a special equity in the stock and corporate notes owned by the husband.
I do not think the evidence is sufficient to support a tracing of the small funds that the wife contributed to the joint account, from which the parties lived, into the acquisition of the stock. The wife conceded that she contributed to the joint account in the early years of their marriage to meet the necessary marital expenses. The funds, at all times, were co-mingled and I find nothing in the record which indicates that the wife is in any position to contend that the funds taken from the joint account by the husband and invested in the stock in his own name were one-half her funds rather than his. The record reveals that the vast majority of the funds contributed to the joint account, from which the stock was purchased, were his funds.
From the cases, it appears the burden of proof upon a wife to sustain a special equity is “to establish, to the exclusion of reasonable doubt, that [she] had acquired either a legal or equitable interest in the [property]”. Lindley v. Lindley, Fla.1955, 84 So. 2d 17; Tanner v. Tanner, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 702. Applying this test to the evidence in the case under consideration, I fail to find that the wife established any special equity and, therefore, would reverse this aspect of the final judgment of divorce here under review. In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Steinhauer v. Lossie S. Steinhauer, 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…of, the husband’s interest in the estate by the entireties can be awarded to the wife as lump sum alimony or to the extent that she establishes a special equity therein. Banfi v. Banfi, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 52; Wollman v. Wollman, Fla.App. 1970, 235 So. 2d 315; Mays v. Mays, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 674. In determining whether or not the award in question should be considered as lump sum alimony and deemed to have been properly made, the divorced wife’s ability to be employed and earn a living, the needs…
-
Roffe v. Moises Roffe, 404 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…imposition of a special equity of half of the property in question, so that he and his wife would indeed be partners with respect to that marriage-acquired parcel. See also, Scheidl v. Scheidl, 343 So. 2d 963 (Fla.1st DCA 1977); Wollman v. Wollman, 235 So. 2d 315 (Fla.3d DCA 1970); cf. Duncan v. Duncan, supra. Moreover, even if a “special equity” is not technically permissible, it is apparent that the trial court justifiably felt that the award to the husband of half of the New Jersey lot was equitably appr…
-
Norwood K. Walton v. Walton, 290 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…also recognized that the wife could secure the husband’s interest in jointly held property by proving a special equity. Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071, 138 So. 796; Parsons v. Parsons, supra; Banfi v. Banfi, supra; Wollman v. Wollman, Fla. App.1970, 235 So. 2d 315. And, more recently, the decisions support a trial judge’s division of property jointly held by the parties when a request is made in the pleadings and the issue is tried. Butcher v. Butcher, supra; Baker v. Baker, supra.1 In reality, what the app…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23 (Fla. 1941)
- Holmes v. The Atl. Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville, 103 Fla. 1071 (Fla. 1932)
- Rosalind E. Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071 (Fla. 1932)
- Forrest B. Lindley v. Lindley, 84 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1955)
- Green v. Green, 228 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Tanner v. Tanner, 194 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Parsons v. Tunis Waldon Parsons, JR., 154 Fla. 299 (Fla. 1944)
- Simkins v. Luisa Victoria Simkins, 219 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Hall v. The Miami Daily News, Inc., 104 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Volpe v. Volpe, 227 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)