THOMAS DONALD OLSON, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY JANE OLSON, 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 divorce appeal, the ex-husband challenges the trial court's award of the marital residence to his ex-wife based on her claimed special equity from capital contributions. The appellate court reverses, holding that the wife's financial contributions (a loan for pilot training and mortgage payments) constitute ordinary marital duties and therefore gifts, insufficient to establish a special equity in jointly owned property.
The wife's financial contributions do not establish a special equity in the marital residence. These contributions fall within the realm of ordinary marital duties and are therefore presumed to be gifts rather than investments entitling her to a disproportionate share of jointly held property.
[1] A spouse seeking to establish a special equity in a jointly held marital residence must demonstrate contributions that were above and beyond the performance of ordinary m…
[2] Financial contributions made by one spouse to the acquisition or maintenance of a jointly held marital residence are presumed to be gifts to the other spouse.
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“a jointly held domicile should be divided equally between each partner with each spouse's financial contributions to the acquisition thereof to be considered as gifts to each other”
Establishes the baseline rule for division of jointly owned marital property and the presumption that contributions are gifts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas and Mary Jane Olson were married for approximately four years. During the marriage, Mary Jane loaned Thomas $4,500 for pilot training because b…
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 Special Equity In Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, ex-husband, seeks review of that provision of a dissolution of marriage judgment awarding his ex-wife the marital residence.
After being married for approximately four years, Mary Jane Olson petitioned for dissolution of her marriage to Thomas Donald Olson and asserted a special equity in their jointly owned marital residence by virtue of the fact she made capital contributions to the maintenance thereof. The chancellor entered final judgment dissolving the marriage and, based upon his finding that Mary Olson has a special equity In the marital domicile, ordered Thomas Olson to convey all interest he may have therein to Mary. Thomas Olson appeals therefrom.
The well established rule is that a jointly held domicile should be divided equally between each partner with each spouse’s financial contributions to the acquisition thereof to be considered as gifts to each other. To establish a special equity, the wife’s contributions must be shown to have been “above and beyond the performance of ordinary marital duties.” Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 825, 831; Tiffany v. Tiffany, Fla.App.1975, 305 So. 2d 798, 800. The record in the case sub judice reflects that Mary Olson loaned her husband $4,500 for pilot training because of both parties desire that Thomas become an airline pilot, and made several mortgage payments due on the marital residence.
We interpret these financial contributions of Mary Olson to be within the realm of ordinary marital duties and, therefore, conclude that she has failed to overcome the presumption that said contributions were gifts. For “there is a marked distinction between a circumstance where a special equity is being sought in a tangible asset because the contribution to the acquisition of that asset was above and beyond the ordinary marital duties and the circumstances where one partner is permitted to receive a judgment against another marital partner for ‘loans’ made during the marital relationship. The latter situation is totally incompatible to the unity concept of marriage.” Rey v. Rey, Fla.App. 1973, 279 So. 2d 360, 362.
Accordingly, that provision of the final judgment awarding the marital residence to the ex-wife is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wynne v. Jefferson Wynne, 342 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…t abuse its discretion in the award of permanent alimony to the husband, or in the denial of the husband’s claim of special equity. Baker v. Baker, 299 So. 2d 138 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Jacobs v. Jacobs, 309 So. 2d 217 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Olson v. Olson, 321 So. 2d 462 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Krasner v. Krasner, 339 So. 2d 674 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976). Affirmed.…
Authorities 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)
- REY v. REY, 279 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Tiffany v. Tiffany, 305 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)