SHIRLEE A. BATEMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARK G. BATEMAN, 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 appeal, the wife challenged the trial court's division of jointly-titled stock purchased with her separate funds. The court reversed and remanded the stock issue, holding that the applicable legal presumptions regarding gift of jointly-owned property depend on whether the purchase occurred before or after Florida's 1968 Constitution, which eliminated distinctions between spouses' property rights.
The court affirmed the dissolution judgment in all respects except the jointly-owned stock provision. For stock purchased before the 1968 Florida Constitution, the old rule applies (presumption of trust for the wife when her funds were used); for stock purchased after 1968, equal presumptions of gift arise between spouses regardless of whose funds were used. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
[1] A presumption of a gift arises when a jointly-owned asset is purchased with the funds of one spouse, regardless of whose money was used, if the purchase occurred after th…
[2] Prior to the 1968 Florida Constitution, a presumption existed that a husband held his interest in jointly owned assets purchased with his wife's separate funds in trust f…
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“since the removal of any distinction between married men and married women in the holding, controlling and disposition of their separate properties by the new, 1968 Florida Constitution, equal presumptions of a gift arise as between husband and wife no matter with whose money a jointly-owned asset is purchased”
Establishes the change in law under the 1968 Florida Constitution regarding presumptions of gift for jointly-owned property.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant-wife and appellee-husband were parties to a dissolution of marriage judgment. The trial court awarded certain stock to the parties jointly, …
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 Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
McNULTY, Chief Judge.
In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage appellant-wife seeks reversal of several of the financial aspects thereof.
Her only meritorious point relates to certain stock taken in the names of the parties jointly but purchased with the wife’s separate funds. She contends that the trial court erred in failing to award her total ownership of such stock.
To begin with, the record is virtually silent as to the date of purchase of this stock. This is of critical importance in light of this court’s Recent decision in Ball v. Ball1 wherein we held that since the removal of any distinction between married men and married women in the holding, controlling and disposition of their separate properties by the new, 1968 Florida Constitution, equal presumptions of a gift arise as between husband and wife no matter with whose money a jointly-owned asset is purchased. Prior to that time, of course, with respect to a purchase of jointly owned assets with the wife’s monies, a counter-presumption existed, i. e., that the husband held his interest in trust for the wife.2 We concluded in Ball, then, that if the purchase of the asset in question preceded the adoption of the 1968 Constitution the old rule applied; if it was after, the new rule applied.
Now, while we could affirm for the reason that appellant-wife has failed clearly to make error appear, we think it would be unfair to do so here for the reason that our decision in Ball, supra, had not been rendered. Accordingly, neither the court nor either of counsel could have been guided by its mandate; which unquestionably explains the absence of any evidence on either side of the question of presumptions. We think it propitious, therefore, that that portion of the judgment relating to the aforementioned jointly owned stock should be set aside and the cause remanded for the taking of such further testimony as may be necessary in light of our decision in Ball, supra.
In view whereof, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the cause is remanded for the purposes aforesaid.
BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur. . (Fla.App.2d 1974), 303 So. 2d 32.
. See Pyle v. Pyle (Fla.1951), 53 So. 2d 312; Mays v. Mays (Fla.App. 3d, 1967), 203 So. 2d 674.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pyle v. Pyle, 53 So.2d 312 (Fla. 1951)
- Madge P. Ball v. Ball, 303 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Mays v. Eleanore Ball Mays, 203 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)