JIMMY B. POSTON, APPELLANT,
v.
DARLENE POSTON, 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.
This case involves a husband's appeal of a divorce judgment where he was denied a special equity in the marital home. The appellate court found that the husband presented sufficient evidence of his contributions to the home and reversed the trial court's decision.
Yes, the trial court erred in denying the husband a special equity in the marital home. The husband's claim was established by the evidence presented.
[1] A husband may establish a special equity in marital property by presenting evidence of his contribution of time and money to the acquisition or improvement of the propert…
[2] A conveyance of property from one spouse to another, even if intended to resolve financial disputes, does not necessarily extinguish a spouse's claim to a special equity…
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“The husband then gave a quitclaim deed to the property to the wife and stated therein, “The instrument is in consideration of the cancellation of that certain promissory note to Thomas D. and Joyce M. Miller dated July 7, 1974, and is not determinative of any special equity the husband may have- in the wife’s property.””
This quote highlights the husband's explicit reservation of his special equity claim during the property transfer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married for six months. The land for the home was originally the wife's father's, who conveyed it to the husband in exchange for a no…
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 Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment dissolving the marriage between the parties. Appellant husband contends that the trial court erred in not awarding him a special equity in the home of the parties.
The marriage lasted only six months prior to the filing of the petition for dissolution by the wife (appellee).
The land on which the home of the parties was located originally belonged to the wife’s father. He conveyed it to the husband in return for a $9,000 note. The husband then secured a loan and built the home on the property, putting some of his own time and money into the house. When the marriage went on the rocks, the father threatened suit on the note. The husband then gave a quitclaim deed to the property to the wife and stated therein, “The instrument is in consideration of the cancellation of that certain promissory note to Thomas D. and Joyce M. Miller dated July 7, 1974, and is not determinative of any special equity the husband may have-in the wife’s property.” The father’s attorney then delivered the satisfied note to the husband. The transaction was handled by the attorneys for the respective parties and the father testified that he intended that the husband’s deed to the property be to him rather than to the wife. The wife contends that although title was taken in her name, the deed created a resulting trust in favor of her father because the deed should have been to her father. It does not appear, however, that there was any mistake on the husband’s part in his conveyance to the wife, and he did so specifically reserving his claim to a special equity. The husband’s testimony that he had put time and money in the property was not refuted, and the wife admitted it.
The trial court denied the husband’s claim to a special equity. The claim of the husband was established by the evidence, and it was, therefore, error for the trial court to decline to award it and to not impress a lien upon the property for the amount awarded.
Reversed and remanded.
RAWLS, Acting C. J. , and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gratton v. Gratton, 358 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ida Statutes (1975), and in the situation of the parties was not an abuse of discretion. In view of the disclosed facts bearing thereon we hold no reason in law has been shown to disturb the special equity award to the husband. See Poston v. Poston, 332 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Italiane v. Italiane, 342 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). It was argued strenuously on behalf of the wife that the circumstances of the case were such that an award of permanent alimony should have been made, and that it was a…