EDWARD C. GENTER, APPELLANT,
v.
JANET L. GENTER, 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 dissolution of marriage case, the Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the wife held a special equity in the marital home despite title being placed solely in the husband's name. The court imposed a constructive trust based on the wife's contribution of funds for the down payment and her understanding that she would have an ownership interest.
The court held that the wife possessed a special equity in the marital home and affirmed the trial court's imposition of a constructive trust. The husband took legal title as a trustee for the benefit of both himself and his wife, given her role in obtaining the down payment funds and the parties' mutual understanding regarding ownership.
[1] A constructive trust arises when an abuse of confidence renders the acquisition or retention of property unconscionable.
[2] A spouse may be awarded a special equity in marital property when their contributions, such as providing funds for a down payment, demonstrate an intent to have an owners…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is a general rule that a constructive trust arises where an abuse of confidence renders the acquisition and/or retention of property or proceeds by one party unconscionable by the other party.”
Establishes the foundational legal principle governing constructive trusts in Florida matrimonial property disputes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties borrowed $3,200 from the wife's grandmother as a down payment for a marital home, which was purchased and titled in the husband's name onl…
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 Abuse Of Confidence cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the defendant husband, Edward C. Genter, from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which found that the plaintiff wife, Janet L. Genter, was a joint owner with the husband in the marital home. Prior to the marriage the parties herein borrowed $3,200 from plaintiff wife’s grandmother to be used as a downpayment on the marital home which was purchased in the husband’s name. It was the wife’s understanding that although title was placed in the name of the husband, she would have an interest in the home. Throughout the three years of the marriage, plaintiff wife often worked in her husband’s business without pay and the parties made improvements on the marital home, which presently has a fair market value of $22,000. Following a hearing in the Circuit Court in and for Dade County, the judge found that the wife had a special equity in the marital home and this appeal followed.
The court below properly imposed a constructive trust in the marital home. It is a general rule that a constructive trust arises where an abuse of confidence renders the acquisition and/or retention of property or proceeds by one party unconscionable by the other party. See Firestone v. Firestone, Fla.1972, 263 So.2d 223; Wilkins v. Wilkins, 144 Fla. 590, 198 So. 335 (1940); Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419 (1927). In the case sub judice the wife was responsible for obtaining the money with which the marital home was purchased, and it was her intention that the home was to be held in both her name and her husband’s name. The husband, however, took title in his individual name. We see no reason to differ with the trial judge who found that the husband took the legal title as a trustee for the benefit of his wife and himself. Firestone v. Firestone, supra; Picchi v. Picchi, Fla.1958, 100 So.2d 627; Hegel v. Hegel, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.3d 212; King v. King, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 242. In view of the above no error was committed in rewarding special equity to the wife. Engebretsen v. Engebretsen, Fla.1942, 151 Fla. 372, 11 So.2d 322; Lee v. Lee, Fla.App. 1972, 262 So.2d 6; Wollman v. Wollman, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 315. In the instant case plaintiff wife met her burden of proof and the deci.sion of the trial judge must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saporta v. Saporta, 766 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…the treatment of property held as a tenancy by the entireties, see § 61.075(3)(a)5, Fla. Stat. (1999); Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1991), or property purchased during a marriage and titled in one spouse’s name. See Genter v. Genter, 270 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Rather, this case involves a dispute over property purchased by parties years before there was a marriage. See generally George L. Blum, Annotation, Property Rights Arising From Relationship of Couple Cohabiting Without Marriage,…
-
Picallo v. Picallo, 443 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…e findings and adjudications of the trial court complained of by the appellants. Williams v. Grogan, 100 So. 2d 407 (Fla.1958); Sihler v. Sihler, 376 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Green v. Green, 314 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Genter v. Genter, 270 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); 3 Fla.Jur.2d, Appellate Review § 277. On the cross-appeal we find error in the requirement of the return of the $15,000 advanced to the son toward the purchase of the house and the denial of the return of the $15,000 delivered t…
Authorities Cited
- Porte F. Quinn v. Phipps, 113 So. 419 (Fla. 1927)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 263 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1972)
- Engebretsen v. Toley Engebretsen, 151 Fla. 372 (Fla. 1942)
- Picchi v. Picchi, 100 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1958)
- Wilkins v. Wilkins, 144 Fla. 590 (Fla. 1940)
- Wollman v. Wollman, 235 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- LEE v. LEE, 262 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Domino's Pizza, LLC v. Wiederhold, 248 So. 3d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- King v. Lowell King, 113 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)