MAXWELL ROY FOREHAND, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBIN J. FOREHAND, 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 failing to recognize the husband's special equity in the marital home based on his contributions from pre-marital property.
The wife acquired the marital home prior to marriage and transferred title to tenancy by the entireties to obtain a mortgage. During the marriage, the…
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
MELVIN, Judge.
Appellant/husband seeks review of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which awarded to the appellee/wife as a special equity the full and complete ownership of the marital premises. Husband urges that the court erred by failing to recognize his special equity in the marital home.
The marital home of the parties was originally titled in the wife’s name and had been acquired by her prior to the marriage. In connection with obtaining a $6,000 mortgage-loan, the wife transferred title to the marital home to the parties as a tenancy by the entireties. The trial court, in awarding the marital home to the wife, found that no gift was intended by this transfer. This finding by the trial court will not be disturbed. However, the record reveals that during the marriage, the husband utilized monies he received from the sale of the property which he had acquired prior to the marriage to make substantial improvements to the marital home. It is undisputed that the husband contributed $5,117.83 for these improvements.
Based on the record, we conclude the trial court did err by not recognizing the husband’s proven special equity in the marital home to the extent of $5,117.83. Sanders v. Sanders, 362 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), Opinion filed June 6, 1978. Further, the final judgment fails to provide that the $6,000 mortgage on the marital home, now titled solely in the wife’s name, should be the wife’s sole obligation.
Accordingly, the cause is reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to award a special equity in the marital home to the husband in the amount of $5,117.83 but with such provisions as the trial court deems proper in reference to the exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the marital home by the wife and children during their minority or so long as the same is utilized as the place of residence for the children.
SMITH, Acting C. J., and BOOTH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leonard v. Leonard, 389 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…as tenants by the entireties was supplied by one spouse from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship,” Ball v. Ball, supra, at 7 (emphasis supplied); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 368 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Forehand v. Forehand, 363 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Merrill v. Merrill, 357 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). But a showing that property held as tenants by the entire-ties was acquired from a source connected with the marriage, that is, the husband’s earnings during coverture, doe…1 / 2
-
LEE Cnty. Dep't OF Transp. v. The Island Water Ass'n, Inc., 218 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…gave way when the plaintiff stepped on it, thus causing her to fall. Jd. Similarly, Island Water’s valve became a hazard when it protruded above the pavement when the asphalt around it eroded or settled. See Utter v. Jacksonville Utils. Mgmt., Inc., 363 So. 2d 829, 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (reversing dismissal of amended complaint when it alleged a water utility’s “negligent maintenance of its water meter and the creation or failure to repair a hazardous hole surrounding it”); City of Niceville v. Hardy, 160 S…
-
Shapiro v. Shapiro, 484 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…imated at the original hearing. The court ened, howe.er, in deleting the $3,000 contribution toward capital improvements. Stoutamire v. Stoutamire, 321 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 108 (Fla.1976) and Forehand v. Forehand, 363 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Accordingly, we remand the matter a second time tor the court to calculate the Wife’s special equity in the home, according to the Landay formula, and in light of her non-marital contributions totaling $12,-842.69. In all other…
Authorities Cited
- Sanders v. Sanders, 362 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)