LULA MAE ATKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRISON ATKINS, 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 the evidence did not support the award of $450.00 as the appellant's interest in the property.
The parties took title to real property as tenants by the entireties. The appellee sought a conveyance of absolute title via special equity, while the…
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 Tenants By The Entireties cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
This suit commenced as a dissolution of marriage proceeding. However, at trial it was determined that one of the parties had a living spouse from whom no divorce had been obtained. Accordingly, the trial court determined there was no marital union.
During the course of their relationship the parties took title to a certain parcel of real property in Broward County,, ostensibly as tenants by the entireties. In his complaint the appellee prayed for a conveyance of the absolute title by way of a special equity. The appellant also prayed for a special equity in said property and “in the alternative” for a partition. In the final judgment under review the trial court awarded appellant $450.00 as her interest in the property and directed her to execute a quit-claim deed to appellee.
The rule seems to be that if a conveyance of land to two or more persons is silent regarding the interest each is to take, the presumption is that their interests are equal. Loring v. Palmer, 118 U.S. 321, 341, 6 S.Ct. 1073, 1080, 30 L.Ed. 211 (1886).
It is our view that the evidence fails to support the award of $450.00 as appellant’s interest in the property. We therefore reverse the judgment under review and remand the cause for a new trial. Since appellant prayed for partition of the property, upon remand the court shall determine the interests of the parties in the property and partition it in accordance with Chapter 64, F.S.1975.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deortha A. Moore v. Moore, 401 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…ion the effectiveness of the gift to the parties. In this case we do not reach that question. . Wright v. Wright, 388 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Marsh v. Marsh, 399 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (Cowart, J., dissenting). . Atkins v. Atkins, 326 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). . Lieber v. Lieber, 40 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1949); Lindquist v. Lindquist, 351 So. 2d 391 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); Maryea v. Maryea, 320 So. 2d 882 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).…
-
Hall v. Almaretta R. Hall, 549 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…d 434, 435-36 (Fla.3d DCA 1966); see In re Estate of Hatch-er, 439 So. 2d 977, 980 (Fla.3d DCA 1983); Nalley v. Nalley, 406 So. 2d 1240, 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Defreitas v. Defreitas, 398 So. 2d 991, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); cf. Atkins v. Atkins, 326 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (in proper annulment proceeding, court may distribute property); Dandy v. Dandy, 234 So. 2d 728, 730-31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) (same).…
Authorities Cited
- Loring & Another v. Palmer, 118 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1886)