RICHARD BENNETT COULTON, APPELLANT,
v.
DIANA C. COULTON, 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 a marriage dissolution proceeding, the trial court awarded the wife the entire fee interest in the marital home as special equity, finding she furnished all purchase proceeds from a personal injury settlement. The appellate court reversed, holding that when spouses commingle settlement funds in a joint account and use those funds to purchase property held as tenants by the entirety, the law presumes a gift of whatever interest is necessary to give each spouse equal ownership, which presumption was not rebutted here.
The court reversed the judgment, holding that where spouses commingle settlement funds in a joint account with equal rights and use those funds to purchase property held as tenants by the entirety, the law presumes a gift by each spouse to the extent necessary to vest a one-half interest in the other spouse. This presumption of donative intent may be rebutted by showing contrary intent, but no such rebuttal occurred here.
[1] Where spouses hold marital property as tenants by the entirety, a presumption of a gift exists to the extent of a one-half interest in the property when one spouse provid…
[2] The presumption of a donative intent when one spouse contributes more to the purchase of marital property held as tenants by the entirety can be rebutted by evidence of a…
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“it is now settled in this state that where one spouse provides the greater portion of the purchase price for the marital property held by the entirety the law will presume a gift by that spouse to the extent of whatever interest is necessary to vest a one-half interest in the purchased property in the other spouse.”
Establishes the governing legal standard regarding presumptions of gift in marital property cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhile married, the parties and their children were injured in an auto accident and received a joint settlement check. The parents' portion of the sett…
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 Donative Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant-husband, Richard Coulton, appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage wherein appellee-wife was awarded the entire fee interest in the marital home as special equity. We reverse.
The operative facts are these. While married, the parties and their children were injured in an auto accident. As a result, a settlement check was issued payable to appellant and appellee “jointly, individually and on behalf of the children.” Although the settlement agreement provided for a division of the funds as between each child’s separate estate, no similar distinction was made between the estates of each parent. Upon receipt of the check, the childrens’ designated funds were invested in certificates of deposit in the names of each. The parents’ funds were not further segregated but were deposited in a joint savings account to which each had equal rights.
Thereafter, a portion of the settlement award was withdrawn from the account and used to purchase the marital home now at issue. Title to the property was held by the parties as tenants by the entirety. The remaining portion of the account was otherwise spent.
Following dissolution proceedings initiated by the husband, the trial court rendered a final judgment which among other things awarded appellee the entire fee interest in the marital home as a special equity upon a finding that she furnished the entire proceeds for the purchase of the home. This finding was apparently predicated on the assumed fact that the wife was the more seriously injured in the accident and, therefore, the lion’s share of the parents’ settlement was really hers.
Notwithstanding, it is now settled in this state that where one spouse provides the greater portion of the purchase price for the marital property held by the entirety the law will presume a gift by that spouse to the extent of whatever interest is necessary to vest a one-half interest in the purchased property in the other spouse.1 This presumption of a donative intent may, of course, be rebutted by a showing of a contrary intent.2
Undisputedly, here, upon receipt of the settlement, the parties rather than segregating their share of the funds chose to treat the award as joint and co-equal property by putting it into a joint savings account where each had equal rights thereto. Certainly such treatment is indicative of an intention of joint ownership, regardless of the initial source or relative interest therein, and the mutual contributions are presumed to be gifts. This presumption is indeed fortified by the withdrawal from the account and investing in entireties real estate. Nothing rebutted this.
In view whereof, the judgment appealed from should be, and it is hereby, reversed; and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN and SCHEB, JJ., concur. . See Farris v. Farris (Fla.App. 2d, 1975), 304 So. 2d 526; Steinhauer v. Steinhauer (Fla.App. 4th, 1971), 252 So. 2d 825.
. See Hanzelik v. Hanzelik (Fla.App. 4th, 1974), 294 So. 2d 116.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jassy v. Jassy, 347 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…al 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 tract of encumbered land he gave to his wife and argues that the court should have found this and other gift…
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)
- Dr. B. L. Stalnaker, M.D. v. Neckles, 294 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Hanzelik v. Reine Hanzelik, 294 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Ball v. Page Matherson, 304 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)