ALEXANDER DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSA LEE DAVIS, 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 affirmed a dissolution judgment awarding property to the wife based on her sole contribution of funds prior to 1968, applying special equity or resulting trust doctrine.
A chancellor may determine equitable ownership of jointly-titled property in a dissolution proceeding where the petition and counter-petition request such relief and no objection is raised at trial, and may award property to the spouse who solely funded its purchase under special equity or resulting trust principles.
[1] In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, a chancellor may determine the equitable ownership of jointly-titled property based on the prayers in the petition and counter-pe…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHusband and wife held certain real and personal property in joint names. The wife had purchased the property solely from her own funds prior to 1968.…
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 Equitable Distribution Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant/respondent/husband challenges the correctness of a final judgment which dissolved his marriage to appel-lee/petitioner/wife and determined the ownership of certain real and personal property held by the parties in their joint names.
After carefully reviewing the record and briefs, in light of the controlling principles of law, it is our opinion that (1) the chancellor was authorized to determine the equities of the spouses in the property by virtue of both the prayers found in the petition and counter-petition for dissolution of marriage and the fact that no objection to such proceeding was voiced at trial; and (2) that there was competent evidence to support the chancellor’s ruling that, by virtue of the fact that the wife had purchased the property solely from her own funds prior to 1968, she was entitled to be vested with ownership of said property on either a special equity or resulting trust theory. Hendricks v. Hendricks, 312 So. 2d 792 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Walton v. Walton, 290 So. 2d 110 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Ball v. Bali, 303 So. 2d 32 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). See also McKenry v. McKenry, 336 So. 2d 20 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Robinson v. Robinson, 340 So. 2d 935 (Fla.4th DCA 1976); Ezell v. Ezell, 320 So. 2d 427 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Olsen v. Olsen, 195 So. 2d 864 (Fla.3d DCA 1967).
Accordingly, the final judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hendricks v. Hendricks, 312 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Norwood K. Walton v. Walton, 290 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Madge P. Ball v. Ball, 303 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Olsen v. Sydney Olsen, 195 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Fanny Napoli and Edward Napoli, 340 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- McKENRY v. McKENRY, 336 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Ezell v. Richetta Ezell, 320 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)