BESSIE LEE HARGETT,
v.
WELDON R. HARGETT
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 this divorce case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a decree awarding real property to the husband, holding that sufficient evidence can overcome the legal presumption that property held as an estate by the entireties was a gift to the wife when the husband purchased the property and arranged the joint titling.
The presumption that a joint estate by the entireties is a gift to the wife can be overcome by conclusive evidence showing that all funds for the property came from the husband and that he had a non-gift reason for the joint titling. The trial court's award of fee simple title to the husband was proper where the husband's testimony regarding his intent was not sufficiently contradicted and the wife made no contribution to the acquisition or preservation of the property.
“It is the law of this jurisdiction that where property is purchased by the husband and deeds are taken by the husband and wife jointly an estate by the entireties is created, and the presumption of law is that it was intended as a gift to the wife, which will be upheld until overcome by conclusive evidence.”
Establishes the legal presumption that must be overcome in cases of jointly titled property purchased by the husband.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWeldon R. Hargett purchased real property and took title jointly with his wife, Bessie Lee Hargett, as an estate by the entireties. The husband testif…
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 Conclusive Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Weldon R. Hargett was awarded a decree of divorce from his wife, Bessie Lee Hargett. The bill of complaint charged, among other things, that during the time the parties lived together as husband and wife the plaintiff purchased certain real property the title to which “was taken in the name of the plaintiff and defendant as an estate by the entirety, for the reason that plaintiff was advised and believed at the time said deeds were delivered to him that title to real estate in Florida could be held in no other way. That defendant had not contributed one cent to the payment of purchase money [on the property] or to the household goods, furniture or fixtures contained therein. That plaintiff is entitled to have the title to said above described property decreed to plaintiff to be owned and held by plaintiff in fee simple.” So far as is pertained to the property, the decree of the trial court was *731“That the fee simple title to said property be and the same is hereby decreed into the said Weldon P. Hargett and that he is the sole, rightful and only owner of same; and jurisdiction to perfect conveyance is retained.” The defendant below has appealed from the decree, assigning as error that portion of the final decree which awards the real property to the plaintiff.
It is the law of this jurisdiction that where property is purchased by the husband and deeds are taken by the husband and wife jointly an estate by the entireties is created, and the presumption of law is that it was intended as a gift to the wife, which will be upheld until overcome by conclusive evidence. Francis v. Francis, 133 Fla. 495, 182 So. 833; Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So. (2nd) 727; Kollar v. Kollar, 155 Fla. 705, 21 So. (2nd) 356.
The evidence in the record is sufficient, if believed by the chancellor, to overcome the presumption of gift of the property interest to the wife. The testimony offered by the plaintiff was to the effect that all funds which went into the property, furnishings, and effects belonged to the husband. The reason given by the husband for having title to the property put in the names of both husband and wife jointly, was not sufficiently contradicted by the wife to lose its value as evidence, if the chancellor saw fit to believe it. If the wife made the slightest contribution to the welfare, happiness, peace, permanency, or preservation of the material union, such fact is not disclosed by the record; indeed the record reflects the contrary.
The decree appealed from is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN and TERRELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schoenrock v. Alvina N. Schoenrock, 202 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…e. McFarland v. McFarland, Fla.App.1961, 131 So. 2d 749, 752; O’Connell v. O’Connell, Fla.1950, 45 So. 2d 882, 883; Lieber v. Lieber, Fla.1949, 40 So. 2d 111, 112; Lovejoy v. Lovejoy, 1948, 160 Fla. 652, 653, 36 So. 2d 192; Hargett v. Hargett, 1946, 156 Fla. 730, 731, 24 So. 2d 305; Kollar v. Kollar, 1945, 155 Fla. 705, 709, 21 So. 2d 356, 358; Strauss v. Strauss, 1941, 148 Fla. 23, 26, 3 So. 2d 727, 728. Therefore, to have been entitled to a ruling by the chancellor that he was the sole owner of the proper…
-
McFARLAND v. McFARLAND, 131 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…with reference to this property, which he knew was purchased as an estate by the entirety, and that the effect of such purchase was that on the death of either of the parties the sole interest vested in the other. In the case of Hargett v. Hargett, 156 Fla. 730, 24 So. 2d 305, the Supreme Court upheld a divorce decree in which the lower court awarded to the husband the property of the parties held as an estate by the entirety “for the reason that plaintiff was advised and believed at the time said deeds we…
-
Baxter v. Baxter, 158 Fla. 886 (Fla. 1947)…1946. Counsel for cross appellant insists that from these facts it became the Chancellor’s duty under the law to decree the husband the sole owner of the home to the exclusion of the wife, and cites and relies upon our holding in Hargett v. Hargett, 156 Fla. 730, 25 So. (2nd) 305. We are not unmindful of some disputes and conflicts in the testimony on a position of the details about the purchase of the home. The applicable rule to the conditions and circumstances reflected by this record is, if there is su…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23 (Fla. 1941)
- Kollar v. Kollar, 155 Fla. 705 (Fla. 1945)
- Francis v. Francis, 133 Fla. 495 (Fla. 1938)