THOMAS TERRELL, APPELLANT,
v.
BEVERLY TERRELL, 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 trial court's finding that the ring was the wife's separate property, subject to the husband's right to purchase it for $5,000, was unsupported by the evidence.
In a dissolution of marriage case, the husband claimed he loaned a diamond ring to his wife, while the wife claimed it was a gift for life, subject to…
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 Separate Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the husband in a dissolution of marriage case. Three points have been raised on appeal, but only one has merit.
The trial court found that a certain diamond ring was the wife’s separate property and ordered the husband to deliver the ring to the wife. However, the court further ordered that the husband could have the right to possession and ownership of the ring upon payment to the wife of $5,000.00. At the trial, the husband testified that he merely loaned the ring, which was a family heirloom, to his wife. The wife, on the other hand, contended that her husband gave the ring to her with the understanding that the ring was hers, subject to the condition that she give it to one of his children when she died. In other words, the wife claimed a gift for life, while the husband claimed that he only meant for his wife to wear the ring during their marriage and did not intend to transfer ownership to her. The testimony is in conflict; the trial court, as the finder of fact, could have accepted either version. If the court believed the husband’s testimony, the ring should have been given to the husband without the requirement that he pay $5,000.00 to his wife. If the court believed the wife’s testimony, the ring should have been given to the wife for life, subject to the condition that she give the ring to one of the husband’s children upon her death. There is no basis in the evidence, however, to find that the ring is the wife’s separate property subject to the husband’s right to purchase the ring for $5,000.00. This portion of the final judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for the trial court to determine, consistent with this opinion, the ownership and right of possession of the ring. The remainder of the final judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
DOWNEY, ALDERMAN and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wells v. Thorn, 361 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…handler, 330 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1st DCA 1976). A contractual right may not be enforced unless proved by competent evidence. There was no such proof here. See, Rood v. Miami Air Conditioning Co., 193 So. 2d 216 (Fla.3d DCA 1967), and Terrell v. Terrell, 344 So. 2d 891 (Fla.4th DCA 1977). This is not a situation where issues not pled were tried by consent. Timely objections were made throughout. Final judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this o…
-
Schriefer v. Schriefer, 831 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…tial competent evidence to support the trial court’s finding, the appellate court cannot act as a new fact finder and reverse. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 [*1287] (Fla.1976); Dean v. Dean, 793 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Terrell v. Terrell, 344 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Regarding equitable distribution of marital assets, a trial court may be reversed only if we conclude it has abused its discretion,4 or if it failed to follow a required legal principle. Neither occurred in this case. AFFIRMED…