Bickerstaff v. Bickerstaff, HH-319
| Decision Date | 11 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. HH-319,HH-319 |
| Citation | 358 So.2d 590 |
| Parties | John M. BICKERSTAFF, Appellant, v. Hope E. BICKERSTAFF, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
D. Chanslor Howell, of Howell & Deas, P. A., Jacksonville, for appellant.
Harold B. Haimowitz, P. A., Jacksonville, for appellee.
Husband appeals here the trial court's failure to grant him a special equity in a house owned by the parties as tenants by the entireties in a dissolution proceeding. We find merit in his argument and reverse. We are cognizant of the Florida Supreme Court's pronouncement in Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976), that generally "record title speaks for itself" in such situations and the property becomes a tenancy in common upon dissolution. However, we are also aware of other language in that opinion holding that a special equity is created in property "by an unrebutted showing . . . that all of the consideration for property held as tenants by the entireties was supplied by one spouse from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship." The evidence showed clearly in this case that the husband furnished the entire down payment for the house in question from funds he had inherited separately from his mother. From there on the house was self-supporting as a rental property and wife made absolutely no financial contributions to it. Husband paid all of the mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance premiums and repair costs. He testified that he had played no part in the preparation of the deed which had titled the property in both parties' names and had not intended a gift of the property to the wife. Wife testified that it had always been her understanding that husband had intended a gift to her when he purchased the property. But as this court recently stated in Merrill v. Merrill, 357 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978): "We cannot read Ball v. Ball . . . as holding that a word or two of testimony by the recipient spouse, to the effect that the other intended a gift, obliterates the special equity resulting from an unrebutted showing that the grantor spouse acquired the property from sources entirely independent of the marriage." We do not read the court's statement in Merrill that the question of donative intent is for the chancellor as binding us to a trial court's ruling where as here there is no credible evidence of such an intent below. Husband was entitled to the special equity under the evidence presented here.
Wife's cross...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marsh v. Marsh, 80-451
...ruling is not binding on an appellate court where as here there is no credible evidence of such an intent below. Bickerstaff v. Bickerstaff, 358 So.2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). We are bound to determine that the wife has a special equity in the marital domicile as there was no credible evide......
-
Sanford v. Sanford
...intent is not binding on the appellate court where "... there is no credible evidence of such intent below." Bickerstaff v. Bickerstaff, 358 So.2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). All of the evidence relative to donative intent, except the bald assertion of the Wife, clearly and unequivocally shows......
-
Portuondo v. Portuondo
...as to donative intent is not binding on the appellate court. See Laws v. Laws, 364 So.2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Bickerstaff v. Bickerstaff, 358 So.2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 709 (Fla.1978). In the present case, the evidence clearly and unequivocally shows that the husb......
-
Elkins v. Elkins, 77-1832
...v. Hawkesworth, 345 So.2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 352 So.2d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Bickerstaff v. Bickerstaff, 358 So.2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Compare McCloskey v. McCloskey, 359 So.2d 494 (Fla. 4th DCA ...