ALLISON O. GILLETTE
v.
DORIS M. GILLETTE
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 Florida marital property dispute, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decree awarding a Miami home to the wife, holding that a presumption exists that a wife takes both legal and beneficial title when property is placed in her name by her husband on his consideration, based on the husband's legal duty to support his wife.
The court affirmed the lower court's decree awarding the property to the wife, applying the presumption that a wife takes both legal and beneficial title when property is placed in her name by her husband based on his legal duty of support. The court denied the wife's petition for counsel fees, finding that statutory counsel fees are only available to wives without funds, and she now holds valuable real estate.
“It is the general view that there is a presumption that a wife takes the beneficial as well as the legal title where property is taken in her name on a consideration from her husband. It rests on the theory that it is the legal duty of a husband to support his wife and hence the presumption of a husband discharging his duty in supporting his wife when the legal title is placed in her name.”
Establishes the controlling legal presumption that determined ownership of the marital home
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 married on January 23, 1943, and separated on March 15, 1944. The husband claimed he purchased the property with his own funds but placed …
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 Ownership Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal presents the question of the ownership of a home situated at 1885 Southwest 18th Street, Miami, Florida. The parties married on January 23, 1943; lived together as husband and wife, and separated on March 15, 1944. The plaintiff below (appellant here) alleged that he purchased the property with his own funds, and, for convenience, caused the *799legal title to the property to be taken in the name of his then wife, Doris M. Gillette.
The wife in her answer alleged that during their courtship the plaintiff (later her husband) promised that he would provide her a home and that she would be free from financial worries for herself and child by a former marriage; that if she would marry him he would buy her a home and give it to her; that she married the plaintiff and he carried out his promise with reference to the purchase of a home and placed the legal title in her name, stated that it was her property, and on many occasions to other people re-affirmed the statement of the gift of a home to his wife.
In studying the record we are not oblivious to the sharp disputes and conflicts appearing in the testimony, but under a long line of decisions we are helpless to interfere because ample testimony appears therein to sustain or support the conclusion of the Chancellor below as expressed in the final decree.
It is the general view that there is a presumption that a wife takes the beneficial as well as the legal title where property is taken in her name on a consideration from her husband. It rests on the theory that it is the legal duty of a husband to support his wife and hence the presumption of a husband discharging his duty in supporting his wife when the legal' title is placed in her name. See Semple v. Semple, 90 Fla. 7, 105 So. 134; Flanagan v. Herrett, 130 Fla. 531, 178 So. 147; Smith v. Smith, 143 Fla. 159, 196 So. 409; 26 Am. Jur. 726, par. 100.
The appellee wife by petition filed here seeks an order awarding her counsel fees by her incurred in defending the suit in this Court, largely upon the theory that she is without funds. She overlooks the fact that she now holds title to a valuable piece of real estate paid for almost exclusively by her divorced husband. Counsel fees to a wife granted under the statute is where the wife is without funds to defend the suit brought by her husband. It is upon this theory that the petition for order allowing counsel fees is denied.
The decree appealed from is affirmed.
BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Safford v. McCASKILL, 157 Fla. 133 (Fla. 1946)…has been reaffirmed by this Court on the theory that it is the legal duty of a husband to support his wife, and hence the presumption of a husband discharging his duty when the legal title to the home is placed in her name. See Gillette v. Gillette, 156 Fla. 798, 24 So. (2nd) 363; Smith v. Smith, 143 Fla. 159, 196 So. 409, and similar cases. The facts in the case at bar are easily distinguishable from the facts involved in the cases cited sufra. The motion to dismiss admit as true the material allegations…
-
Baxter v. Baxter, 158 Fla. 886 (Fla. 1947)…ing his [*888] lawful duty in supporting his wife when the legal title is placed in her name. The law will not permit him to say, under the facts involved here, that he did not make a gift to her of an interest in the property. Gillette v. Gillette, 156 Fla. 798, 24 So. (2nd) 363; Smith v. Smith, 143 Fla. 159, 196 So. 409. The final decree (1) awarded the exclusive care, custody and control of Donald H. Baxter, Jr., a three year old boy child born of the marriage, to the former, Donald H. Baxter, until he…
Authorities Cited
- Semple v. Semple, 90 Fla. 7 (Fla. 1925)
- Smith v. Smith, 143 Fla. 159 (Fla. 1940)
- Flanagan v. Herrett, 130 Fla. 531 (Fla. 1938)