KEITH O. MALKEMES, APPELLANT,
v.
KATHRYN W. MALKEMES, 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 erred in awarding 100% special equity to the appellee for a house, modifying the award to 75% for the appellee and 25% for the appellant.
During a short marriage, the parties acquired a house and two apartments. The appellee claimed special equity in these properties, arguing they were p…
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 Gift cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The primary thrust of this appeal is whether the court properly awarded appel-lee a 100% special equity in a house and two condominium apartments which had been acquired in tenancy by the entirety during the parties’ short marriage. This suit for dissolution was filed subsequent to Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976), so none of the pre-Ball presumptions were applicable.
The record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the court’s conclusion that the apartments were bought with money which the appellee had obtained from a source unconnected with the marital relationship and that she did not intend to make a gift of the funds. There is similar evidence with respect to the house except that not all of the monies for its purchase were furnished by the appellee. The record reflects that the appellant contemporaneously supplied $4,000 of his own funds toward the down payment and he signed a joint note with appellee for another $7,000 to be applied thereon. Since the down payment was approximately $30,000, the appellee’s interest in the house should have been limited to 75%.
The other points raised by appellant are without merit. The judgment is modified to the extent that Kathryn W. Caston (formerly Malkemes) shall own an undivided 75% interest and Keith O. Malkemes shall own an undivided 25% interest in the following described property:
Lot 19, Block 127, Unit 4, MARCO BEACH SUBDIVISION, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Pages 32-37, Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
AFFIRMED, AS MODIFIED.
GRIMES, Acting C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sumner Landay v. Landay, 429 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1983)…ontribution only. Evers v. Evers, 374 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Sanders v. Sanders, 362 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Still another court has awarded a percentage ownership based on the amount of the contribution only. Malkemes v. Malkemes, 357 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), overruled, Landay v. Landay, 400 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Ball dealt with a wife who had inherited one-half interest in a house. Using inherited funds she purchased the other one-half interest from her brother and remodeled…
-
Hoffay v. Hoffay, 555 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…ll, 357 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (affirming a 100% special equity in the property which the husband wholly acquired and paid for prior to the marriage, and subsequently transferred to joint ownership during the marriage); Malkemes v. Malkemes, 357 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (affirming a 100% special equity in two condominium apartments that were purchased during the marriage with money the wife had received from a source unconnected with the marriage).1 In Landay v. Landay, 429 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1983)…
-
Landay v. Sumner Landay, 400 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…e consideration, how is the special equity to be measured? Should the wife in the instant case have: 1. One hundred per cent of the property; that is, all of the husband’s one-half [*45] interest? That result would follow from Malkemes v. Malkemes, 357 So. 2d 223 (Fla.2d DCA 1978), because that case took into consideration only the contribution to the down payment. 2. A vested interest to the extent of her contribution; that is $6,486.57? That result is suggest by Abbott v. Abbott, 297 So. 2d 608 (Fla.2d DC…
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
- Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976)