DAVID M. DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
ELANINE A. DAVIS, 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 court held that separate funds contributed to jointly owned property are presumed a gift unless rebutted, requiring equal division of proceeds.
In a dissolution of marriage case, the wife claimed she contributed $5,000 of separate funds to the jointly owned residence. The husband disputed this…
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 Presumption Of Gift cases and more on FLexlaw
In this suit for dissolution of marriage the only issue which was contested at final hearing concerned proper division of the net proceeds from the sale of a residence which the parties had owned as tenants of an estate by the entirety. The trial court found that the wife had established a “special equity” therein to the extent of $5,000.00 and ordered this amount paid to her as “lump sum alimony”, the remainder of the proceeds to be divided equally between the parties. The husband has appealed.
Both in the pleadings and at hearing the wife expressly disclaimed any need or desire for an award of alimony. She did claim, however, that she had contributed approximately $5,000.00 of her separate funds toward the down payment and mortgage installments on the jointly owned residence. The husband disputed this claim and stated that he spent $2,000.00 of his money on improvements. The trial court obviously resolved this dispute in the wife’s favor.
Granting that the wife contributed the sums she claimed, the law presumes such to be a gift and if not rebutted by evidence to the contrary requires that the property be divided equally between the parties as tenants in common under F.S., Section 689.15, F.S.A. Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, Fla.App. 1971, 252 So.2d 825; Zuidhof v. Zuidhof, Fla.App.1971, 242 So.2d 739. It was stipulated in this court that there was no evidence to show either the presence or absence of an intention on the part of either party to make a gift of the funds furnished to create or improve the jointly owned property. It follows that the final judgment should be and is modified so as to provide that the funds from the sale of the parties’ jointly owned residence (the sum of $6,708.00) shall be divided equally between the parties as tenants in common. As thus modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed, as modified herein.
WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1991)…he party asserting the claim for a special equity. This section appears to undo the “no gift” presumption evolved by Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976); and returns the state of Florida’s law on this point back to where it was in Davis v. Davis, 282 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) and Tiffany v. Tiffany, 305 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Under this statute, the donor spouse has the burden of proving no gift was intended. We easily conclude that Mark failed to carry the burden of proof on this issue. 15…
-
Madge P. Ball v. Ball, 303 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…med, just as it has always been presumed if the property was acquired in similar manner from the husband’s funds. On subsequent occasions the Fourth District Court has reaffirmed the principles of Steinhauer. E.g. Davis v. Davis, Fla.App. 4th, 1973, 282 So. 2d 655; Rey v. Rey, Fla.App. 4th, 1973, 279 So. 2d 360. We believe there can be little doubt that Steinhauer properly states the current law with respect to these presumptions. As related to the instant case, since property rights are affected, it is impo…
-
Straley v. Frank, 585 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…he burden of proving no gift was intended on the donor spouse, as opposed to the donee spouse as Ball does. That would put Florida back to the older line of cases prior to Ball. Tiffany v. Tiffany, 305 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Davis v. Davis, 282 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). However, we agree final construction of the statute rests with the Florida Supreme Court. But that too is just a matter of time. So far as our research has revealed, no other appellate court has expressly addressed that question…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Emil Rossodivita v. The King's Surf Ltd., 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Steinhauer v. Lossie S. Steinhauer, 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Bramson v. McCABE, 242 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)