Bassett v. Bassett, 84-655
| Decision Date | 28 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-655,84-655 |
| Citation | 459 So.2d 473 |
| Parties | Patricia Granger BASSETT, Appellant, v. Frederick Scott BASSETT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Clinton A. Curtis, Bartow, for appellant.
Norman White of Bradley, Johnson, Nelson, Young & Horton, Lake Wales, for appellee.
The appellant, Patricia Granger Bassett, appeals from the final judgment dissolving her ten-year marriage to the appellee, Frederick Scott Bassett. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
By the terms of the final judgment, each party received certain personal property. They became tenants in common to three parcels of real estate jointly owned by them prior to the dissolution. The trial court denied the appellant's request for alimony and for a special equity in the marital home. The parties were ordered to pay their own attorney's fees and costs.
We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of attorney's fees to appellant. However, we agree with appellant's contention that the court erred in failing to award her a special equity in the marital home and in failing to award her rehabilitative alimony.
In the absence of a showing as to why either spouse should be awarded more than an equal proportion of real property held as tenants by the entireties, record title speaks for itself and the division of property will be equal between the spouses. Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976). A spouse, however, may try to establish a special equity in the realty by reason of his or her extraordinary contribution toward its acquisition, either financially or through personal industry and service to the other party. Ball.
During the marriage, the parties acquired three parcels of property in their joint names. One parcel was the marital home which had an appraised value of $154,000. The second was a vacation home valued at $73,500 but encumbered by an $18,000 mortgage. The third parcel was a lot in a mobile home park worth approximately $14,000.
It is undisputed that $10,000 of the appellant's funds, from a source totally unconnected to the marital relationship, was used to purchase the lot on which the marital home was built. Appellee did not present evidence that this contribution was intended as a gift. Thus, appellant established her right to a special equity by an unrebutted showing of extraordinary contribution in connection with the purchase of the property from a source clearly unconnected to the marital relationship. Since there was an absence of evidence that a gift was intended, the court erred in failing to award appellant a special equity in the marital home. Ball; Landay v. Landay, 429 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1983).
On the issue of rehabilitative alimony, there is no doubt of the husband's ability to pay. He is a college graduate who has worked on commission for the same company for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frechter v. Frechter, s. 88-1723
...lifestyle enjoyed by the parties during their marriage. See MacConnel v. MacConnel, 467 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Bassett v. Bassett, 459 So.2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The husband's own financial data when considered along with the wife's testimony as to large amounts of cash on hand a......
-
Bagan v. Bagan, 11026
...living is a valid consideration in spousal support determinations. Other jurisdictions have specifically held so. E.g., Bassett v. Bassett, 459 So.2d 473 (Fla.App.1984); In the Matter of the Marriage of Steinbrenner and Steinbrenner, 652 P.2d 845 (Or.App.1982). Cf., Savage v. Savage, 658 P.......
-
Kuehn v. Orlosky, 84-1344
...Also, the record does not appear to establish a right in the wife to a special equity in that brokerage account. See Bassett v. Bassett, 459 So.2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Lang v. Lang, 459 So.2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Tyler v. Tyler, 427 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Bolton v. Bolton, 42......