WILLIAM T. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTINE W. WILLIAMS, 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 trial court awarded the wife custody of two children, child support, and lump sum alimony including the marital home, furniture, and car. The appellate court upheld the alimony award but reversed the finding that the wife held a one-half interest in a savings account containing the husband's inheritance proceeds, ruling that the account was held in escrow for security and remained the husband's sole property.
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in awarding lump sum alimony, but erred in finding that the wife owned a one-half interest in the savings account. The funds in the account were the husband's sole property and did not change character by virtue of the escrow agreement. The case is remanded for reconsideration of the alimony and child support awards.
[1] A trial court has discretion to award lump sum alimony in a dissolution proceeding.
[2] Proceeds from the sale of inherited property, placed in a joint savings account under an escrow agreement pending dissolution, remain the sole property of the inheritor.
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“However, the money belonged to the husband. The wife contributed nothing to its accumulation and had no ownership interest therein.”
Establishes that despite the joint account arrangement, the funds remained the husband's sole property with no ownership interest transferred to the wife.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter twenty years of marriage with two children, the husband filed for dissolution. Prior to the final judgment, the husband and his brothers decided…
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 Gift cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
After twenty years of marriage and two children, ages 10 and 7, the husband fell for the baby sitter. The final judgment of dissolution which resulted awarded the custody of the children to the wife, together with child support and lump sum alimony in the form of the marital domicile, the furniture, and the family car. The judgment also stated “. . . additionally, the wife is recognized as having a one-half interest in the savings account ... in Lexington, Kentucky.” The court directed the custodian of the passbook to divide the account between the parties. The husband assigns as error the award of lump sum alimony and the finding that the wife owned a one-half interest in the savings account.
It is our view that the award of lump sum alimony in this case was well within the court’s discretion. However, the finding that the wife owned one-half of the savings account was erroneous.
The husband and his brothers inherited an undivided interest in some realty in Kentucky. While this dissolution proceeding was pending the brothers found it advantageous to sell the property. Before the wife would execute the necessary papers she insisted the husband’s share of the proceeds be placed in escrow to await the final judgment of dissolution. To implement this the parties agreed the money should be placed in a savings account in both their names and disbursed only upon their joint written consent or on order of the trial court. The passbook was held by the wife’s attorney.
Certainly the wife was well advised to require the proceeds of the sale be held to abide the ultimate decision of the trial court. However, the money belonged to the husband. The wife contributed nothing to its accumulation and had no ownership interest therein. The court did not award her any part of the account as alimony, so it must have considered the placing of the account in both names under the escrow agreement a gift. We think the proceeds of the sale were clearly the husband’s sole property and that they did not lose that character by virtue of the escrow agreement. Thus the finding that the wife owned one-half of the account must be reversed.
The determination of the amount of lump sum alimony and child support could have been affected by the court’s finding the wife owned one-half of the savings account. Therefore, upon remand the trial court may reconsider the entire award of alimony and child support as the equities of the case require.
Reversed in part and remanded.
MAGER, J., and FISCHER, GENE, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adkins v. Clora Adkins, 509 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…. 2d 22 (Fla.1975); Owens v. Owens, 500 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Haass v. Haass, 468 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Odom v. Odom, 452 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Hughes v. Hughes, 421 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Williams v. Williams, 297 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).…