MADGE P. BALL, APPELLANT,
v.
DEXTER C. BALL, 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 affirmed a trial judge's ruling that when a wife's separate funds are used to acquire property titled as tenants by the entirety, she is presumed to have made a gift to her husband, rather than creating a resulting trust. The court held that this presumption became the applicable law following Florida's 1968 Constitution, which eliminated distinctions between married men and women in property rights.
When a wife's separate funds are used to acquire property titled as tenants by the entirety, the presumption is that she has made a gift to her husband. This presumption applies to transactions occurring after 1968, when Florida's new Constitution eliminated distinctions between married men and women in property rights.
[1] When a wife uses her separate funds to acquire property titled as tenants by the entirety, a gift to her husband is presumed.
[2] The presumption of a gift when a wife uses separate funds for entirety property is a change from prior law, which presumed a resulting trust for the wife.
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“There shall be no distinction between married women and married men in the holding, control, disposition, or encumbering of their property, both real and personal”
Florida Constitution Article X, Section 5, which the court identified as the predicate for changing from a presumption of resulting trust to a presumption of gift when a wife's separate funds are used to acquire property in joint tenancy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA wife used her separate funds to acquire property that was titled as tenants by the entirety with her husband. The trial judge applied a presumption …
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
GRIMES, Judge.
This case turns on whether the trial judge was correct when he held that where a wife’s separate funds are used to acquire property in which title is taken as tenants by the entirety, she is presumed to have made a gift to her husband. In years past a contrary rule obtained. Allen v. Allen, Fla.App. 2d, 1960, 123 So. 2d 355; Olsen v. Olsen, Fla.App. 3d, 1967, 195 So. 2d 864. Indeed, a counter-presumption existed, viz., that the wife’s equity from her separate estate is being held by her husband for her in trust. Pyle v. Pyle, Fla. 1951, 53 So. 2d 312; Mays v. Mays, Fla.App. 3d, 1967, 203 So. 2d 674. In 1971 our sister court in Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, Fla.App. 4th, 1971, 252 So. 2d 825, held for the first time that under such circumstances a gift is presumed, 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 important to determine when the presumption of a resulting trust in favor of the wife was replaced by the presumption of a gift. Since everyone is presumed to know the law (a presumption of continuing viability), if the transactions in question were made at a time when the old presumption applied, it would not be proper to apply the new presumption. While a reasonable argument could be made that the date of the change was coincidental with the passage of the new law on dissolution of marriages effective July 1, 1971, we believe that the change more properly relates to the adoption of our 1968 Constitution. This was the predicate for changing the rule with respect to the wife’s claim for loss of consortium in Gates v. Foley, Fla. 1971, 247 So. 2d 40. Of particular significance is Article X, § 5 of the new Constitution which reads:
“There shall be no distinction between married women and married men in the holding, control, disposition, or encumbering of their property, both real and personal; . . . ”
Since the earliest acquisition in this case occurred after 1968, the new presumption applied. Hence, the judge’s statement of the law was correct and fully applicable to the facts of the case.
Affirmed.
McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Hendricks v. Hendricks, 312 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…rital home, acquired and owned by a husband and wife as tenants by the entirety, is to be interpreted as within the realm of “ordinary marital duties” or a prima facie presumption of a gift. However, in the later case of Ball v. Ball, Fla.App.1974, 303 So. 2d 32, it was held that the rule thus recognized in Stein-hauer is not applicable to such contributions made by a wife before the effective date of the 1968 Constitution, to which the prior rule is applicable, that is, that such contributions by a wife to…
-
Jassy v. Jassy, 347 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…e, which the wife valued at $45,000, is encumbered by a $30,000 mortgage. Under the applicable decisional law, where one spouse contributes to purchase of a jointly owned home it has been held to be presumed a gift to the other spouse. Ball v. Ball, 303 So. 2d 32 (Fla.2d DCA 1974).2 The presumption, of course, is a rebuttable one. Coulton v. Coulton, 330 So. 2d 533 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). There was evidence that certain gifts of property were made to the wife by the husband. Appellant points primarily to the trac…
-
Hart v. Hart, 377 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…as already recited, executed on August 27, 1959. That date was approximately nine years prior to the change in the Constitution upon which our Sister Court of the Second District bottomed its opinion when the Ball case appeared there (Ball v. Ball, 303 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1974)) and eighteen years prior to that decision being rendered in the Supreme Court of Florida. At the time that deed was executed, delivered and recorded the law of Florida was to the effect that by so doing appellant was presumed to…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gates v. Foley, 247 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1971)
- 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)
- Pyle v. Pyle, 53 So.2d 312 (Fla. 1951)
- REY v. REY, 279 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Agatha F. Allen v. Allen, 123 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Olsen v. Sydney Olsen, 195 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Mays v. Eleanore Ball Mays, 203 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Davis v. Elanine A. Davis, 282 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)