Baxter v. Baxter

• Decision Date: 16 May 1947
• Citation: 158 Fla. 886,30 So.2d 492
• Parties: BAXTER v. BAXTER.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

30 So.2d 492

158 Fla. 886

BAXTER v. BAXTER.

Florida Supreme Court

May 16, 1947

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Frank A. Smith judge.

Wallace E Davis, of Orlando, for appellant.

Edward K Goethe, of Orlando, for appellee.

CHAPMAN, Justice.

This is an appeal by the wife and a cross-appeal by the husband from a final decree of the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida, (1) granting the husband a divorce, (2) awarding the custody of the young son to the father, with visitation privileges to the mother, and (3) holding that the title to the home of the parties was vested in the plaintiff and the defendant as tenants in common.

In the state of the record it seems necessary to decide only the last two questions--namely, those involving the propriety of the decree with reference to the custody of the child and the property rights of the parties.

The record discloses that the home was purchased during the month of August, 1944. The wife is shown to have made out of her own funds the initial payment of $500 on the home, when the husband subsequently paid the balance due on the first payment and the title was taken in the name of the husband and wife.

Arguendo, let us concede that the wife, with the consent of the husband selected the property; that with the approval of her husband she entered into a written agreement for its purchase; that out of her own funds she paid on this property the sum of $500, and her husband subsequently paid the balance of the initial payment; that a deed to the property was accepted in the name of husband and wife; that they, with their son and the wife's daughter by a former marriage, went into the possession of the property and made it their home until the time of separation in January, 1946. Counsel for cross appellant insists that from these facts it became the Chancellor's duty under the law to decree the husband the sole owner of the home to the exclusion of the wife, and cites and relies upon our holding in Hargett v Hargett, 156 Fla. 730, 24 So.2d 305.

We are not unmindful of some disputes and conflicts in the testimony on a portion of the details about the purchase of the home. The applicable rule to the conditions and circumstances reflected by this record is, if there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conclusions of the Chancellor on disputed issues of fact, then his ruling will not on appeal be disturbed by this Court. We hold there is sufficient testimony in the record to sustain the findings and conclusions of the Chancellor below as expressed in the challenged portion of the final decree. There is a presumption that a wife takes the beneficial as well as the legal title where property is taken in her...