WALTER J. MANLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
JEANETTE MANLEY, 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.
In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court awarded the wife a special equity in the marital home (held as tenants by the entireties) based solely on testimony that her mother had given the property to the couple and helped pay the mortgage. The appellate court reversed, holding that even with the husband's default, the wife failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a special equity in the property.
The court held that the wife's testimony was insufficient to prove a special equity in the marital home, even though the husband defaulted. In a dissolution of marriage case, a plaintiff must prove the allegations of the complaint and entitlement to property awards despite a defendant's default. The court reversed the award of special equity and remanded for reconsideration of monetary relief and visitation rights.
[1] A party seeking a special equity in marital property must prove entitlement through evidence, even in the face of a default judgment.
[2] A gift of property to both spouses, with title held jointly, does not, by itself, establish a special equity for one spouse.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“even in the face of a default by the defendant, a plaintiff in a marriage dissolution case must prove the allegations of the complaint and the entitlement to various property awards”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that default does not eliminate the plaintiff's burden of proof in dissolution cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalter and Jeanette Manley were married and held title to their marital domicile as tenants by the entireties. Jeanette initiated dissolution proceedi…
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 Special Equity In Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Chief Judge.
In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, initiated by the wife, the husband did not appear though served with process.
In her complaint the wife claimed the marital domicile because she alleged her mother had given the property to her and she needed it as a place of abode. The title to said property was held by the parties as tenants by the entireties. A default was entered against the husband and at the final hearing the only proof regarding the marital domicile was the following testimony adduced from the wife:
“The house was given to us by my mother when we were married and I would like it to be returned to me.”
She was then asked:
“Q Because of that gift, you feel you have a special equity in the house?
“A Yes, I do, because my mother helped us several times to pay the payments on the house. My husband wasn’t working.”
In the final judgment the trial court found that the wife was entitled to a special equity in the marital domicile and thus it awarded her the husband’s entire interest in the home and furnishings. In addition, the judgment made a temporary order on visitation permanent. The temporary order had provided that the husband would have no visitation rights with his children until the final hearing, at which time visitation would be considered further. Appellant raises two points on appeal: 1) the court erred in finding a special equity in the marital home and 2) the court erred in denying appellant visitation rights with his children.
The award of a special equity to the wife of the husband’s half interest in the marital home is unsupported in the record. True, the wife requested the house in her complaint and the husband did not answer. However, even in the face of a default by the defendant, a plaintiff in a marriage dissolution case must prove the allegations of the complaint and the entitlement to various property awards. 10 Fla.Jur., Dissolution of Marriage, etc., § 199. Here the only proof offered was that the wife’s mother made a gift of the marital house to both the husband and the wife and that title was taken jointly. No extended discussion is needed to demonstrate that this evidence falls far short of the quality necessary to prove a special equity. Harrison v. Harrison, 314 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975).
Accordingly, the provision of the judgment appealed from which awards appellee a special equity in the marital home is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to reconsider the appellee’s prayer for monetary relief. Secondly, upon remand we direct the trial court to consider visitation rights for appellant and enter an appropriate order thereon. In considering those matters the trial court may take further testimony.
REVERSED AND REMANDED with directions.
DAUKSCH and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Smith, 550 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…RIAM. Affirmed. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Seitz v. Seitz, 471 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Arsht v. Arsht, 467 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Brancolino v. Carretta, 463 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Manley v. Manley, 360 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).…
-
Brancolino v. Carretta, 463 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…nts had conveyed the property to husband and wife jointly. Without more, such a conveyance constitutes an equal gift to the joint grantees and cannot form the basis for a special equity in subsequent dissolution proceedings. Manley v. [*533] Manley, 360 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). See also Moore v. Moore, 401 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Because the ability of the husband to pay child support, the manner of its payment and the security therefor will be affected by our reversal on this point, the trial…
-
Lessie R. (Buster) Williams v. Williams, 497 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…l couple does not thereby create a special equity in the property, upon the subsequent dissolution of the marriage. See Brancolino v. Carretta, 463 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Moore v. Moore, 401 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Manley v. Manley, 360 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). “Without more, such a conveyance constitutes an equal gift to the joint grantees and cannot form the basis for a special equity_” Brancolino, 463 So. 2d at 532. Before one may overcome the presumption that a gift was intended, “…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harrison v. Harrison, 314 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)