Davis v. Davis, 72--1103
| Decision Date | 11 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--1103,72--1103 |
| Citation | 282 So.2d 655 |
| Parties | David M. DAVIS, Appellant, v. Elanine A. DAVIS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ronald J. Hoffer, of Sumner & Tyner, Dade City, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
In this suit for dissolution of marriage the only issue which was contested at final hearing concerned proper division of the net proceeds from the sale of a residence which the parties had owned as tenants of an estate by the entirety. The trial court found that the wife and established a 'special equity' therein to the extent of $5,000.00 and ordered this amount paid to her as 'lump sum alimony', the remainder of the proceeds to the divided equally between the parties. The husband has appealed.
Both in the pleadings and at hearing the wife expressly disclaimed any need or desire for an award of alimony. She did claim, however, that she had contributed approximately $5,000.00 of her separate funds toward the down payment and mortgage installments on the jointly owned residence. The husband disputed this claim and stated that he spent $2,000.00 of his money on improvements. The trial court obviously resolved this dispute in the wife's favor.
Granting that the wife contributed the sums she claimed, the law presumes such to be a gift and if not rebutted by evidence to the contrary requires that the property be divided equally between the parties as tenants in common under F.S., Section 689.15, F.S.A. Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, Fla.App. 1971, 252 So.2d 825; Zuidhof v. Zuidhof, Fla.App.1971, 242 So.2d 739. It was stipulated in this court that there was no evidence to show either the presence or absence of an intention on the part of either party to make a gift of the funds furnished to create or improve the jointly owned property. It follows that the final judgment should be and is modified so as to provide that the funds from the sale of the parties' jointly owned residence (the sum of $6,708.00) shall be divided equally between the parties as tenants in common. As thus modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed, as modified herein.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Straley v. Frank
...would put Florida back to the older line of cases prior to Ball. Tiffany v. Tiffany, 305 So.2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Davis v. Davis, 282 So.2d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). However, we agree final construction of the statute rests with the Florida Supreme Court. But that too is just a matter ......
-
Ball v. Ball
...(Fla.); Tiffany v. Tiffany, 305 So.2d 798 (Fla.App. 4th 1975); Hanzelik v. Hanzelik, 294 So.2d 116 (Fla.App. 4th 1974); Davis v. Davis, 282 So.2d 655 (Fla.App. 4th 1973); Calligarich v. Calligarich, 256 So.2d 60 (Fla.App. 4th 1971); Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, 252 So.2d 825 (Fla.App. 4th 1971......
-
Powell v. Powell, 76-2036
...property would now be presumed to be a gift in the same manner as if the husband had furnished the money. E. g., Davis v. Davis, 282 So.2d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Rey v. Rey, 279 So.2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). However, in Hegel v. Hegel, 248 So.2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), the Third District......
-
Ball v. Ball
...the husband's funds. On subsequent occasions the Fourth District Court has reaffirmed the principles of Steinhauer. E.g. Davis v. Davis, Fla.App.4th, 1973, 282 So.2d 655; Rey v. Rey, Fla.App.4th, 1973, 279 So.2d We believe there can be little doubt that Steinhauer properly states the curren......