JEANNE D. FARRAR, APPELLANT,
v.
DR. JOHN MARVIN FARRAR, 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 dissolution of marriage appeal, the wife claimed the husband committed fraud by taking title to the marital home in his name alone, while the husband challenged the award of attorney's fees to the wife. The court affirmed the denial of the fraud claim but reversed and remanded regarding the wife's mortgage liability.
The court held that no fraud was demonstrated by taking title in the husband's name alone, so the trial court did not err in rejecting that claim. However, the court held that it was error to fail to relieve the wife of mortgage liability or require the husband to indemnify her from loss on the $38,000 and $12,000 mortgages. The court also held that the trial court did not err in awarding attorney's fees to the wife.
[1] A trial court does not err in failing to find fraud when the title to a marital home is taken solely in the husband's name, absent a showing of the wife's financial contr…
[2] A trial court errs by failing to include in a final judgment of dissolution a provision relieving a spouse of mortgage liability or requiring indemnification from the oth…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We hold that this record does not demonstrate error upon the trial judge's failure to find fraud in that the title to the marital home was taken in the husband's name alone.”
Establishes that title placement in one spouse's name does not constitute fraud without additional circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis short-duration marriage involved parties of mature age (husband over 70, wife over 60). The husband purchased a marital home using funds from a m…
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 Attorney'S Fees Award cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The former wife, Jeanne D. Farrar, appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and assigns as error the financial provisions of the judgment. The husband has appealed and assigns as error the allowance of an attorney’s fee to the wife. This marriage of short duration was between parties of mature age, the husband being past seventy and the wife past sixty years of age. The main thrust of the wife’s appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to find fraud on the part of the husband for not placing the title to the marital home in the joint names of the husband and wife. There is no showing that the wife contributed money to the purchase of the home and the deed was actually taken in the name of the husband only. The funds for the purchase of the home were procured by a mortgage on a prior residence owned by the husband in which the wife refused to live. Both the husband and wife signed this mortgage. The first residence was later sold and the mortgage assumed by the purchasers. In addition, the wife signed the assumption of a $12,000 mortgage on the new home purchased by the husband. The record shows an offer by the husband to secure a release of the wife’s liability on these mortgages or to indemnify her for any liability that she may have.
We hold that this record does not demonstrate error upon the trial judge’s failure to find fraud in that the title to the marital home was taken in the husband’s name alone. See Sheppard v. Cherry, 118 Fla. 473, 159 So. 661 (1935); Miller v. Bay-To-Gulf, Inc,, 141 Fla. 452, 193 So. 425 (1940); and Casey v. Welch, Fla.1951, 50 So. 2d 124. We hold, however, that it was error for the trial court to fail to include in its judgment a provision for either relieving the wife of the liability of the $38,000 and $12,000 mortgages or requiring the husband to execute and deliver under the court’s supervision a proper instrument indemnifying the wife from loss by liability upon these mortgages.
The husband has failed to demonstrate error upon the trial court’s allowance, under the circumstances of this case, of an attorney’s fee for the wife.
Accordingly, the cause is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Casey v. Welch, 50 So.2d 124 (Fla. 1951)
- Miller v. Bay-to-Gulf, Inc., 141 Fla. 452 (Fla. 1940)
- Sheppard v. Cherry, 118 Fla. 473 (Fla. 1935)