Hegel v. Hegel

• Decision Date: 18 May 1971
• Docket Number: No. 70--86,70--86
• Citation: 248 So.2d 212
• Parties: Carlos G. HEGEL, Appellant, v. Ann P. HEGEL, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 212

248 So.2d 212

Carlos G. HEGEL, Appellant, v. Ann P. HEGEL, Appellee.

No. 70--86.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 18, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1971.

Wakefield & Underwood and Garth A. Webster, Miami, for appellant.

Barry L. Garber, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ., and MARTIN, HENRY F., Jr., Associate Judge.

MARTIN, Associate Judge.

Appellant husband appeals from a final judgment of divorce wherein the trial court found that he had no interest in certain property acquired and owned jointly by the parties during coverture.

The facts present the reverse of the usual situation. That is to say, the appellee wife is a person of substantial wealth while appellant has no independent means and earned a modest living as a draftsman prior to marriage. Appellant does contend that he is an architect, however, the evidence discloses that he has never received any academic degree in that field and holds no license as such.

The parties were married to each other on July 27, 1962, and thereafter acquired substantial property, both real and personal, in their joint names as tenants by the entireties. The trial court concluded as follows:

'15. That the court from the evidence and the testimony finds that the plaintiff, Ann P. Hegel, did not make a gift to the defendant, Carlos G. Hegel, of the property, real and personal, hereinabove referred to and that the said defendant failed by competent testimony and evidence to overcome the presumption existing in the plaintiff's favor that a gift had not been made. Therefore, this court hereby finds that as to the property, real and personal, referred to in the Final Judgment of Divorce, that the defendant, Carlos G. Hegel, was a trustee of a constructive trust of said property for the plaintiff, Ann P. Hegel, beneficiary thereof. That the court observed the demeanor of the parties during their testimony and it appears unto the court that the defendant, by his facial expressions and other mannerisms contrived to present what he believed to be correct answers so as to bolster his position.'

The trial court also required appellant to pay to appellee the sum of $70.00 per week as a contribution to the support of the two minor children of the parties. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in awarding all of his interest in the jointly owned property to appellee and in requiring that he pay child support under the circumstances.

The evidence discloses that appellee is the beneficiary of a trust estate which is administered in the state of Connecticut from which she receives approximately $100,000 annually. Appellant held no regular employment during the marriage and received only scattered commissions from his architectural-type work for a total of approximately $8,000 during the seven and one-half years of marriage. Such earnings, meager as they are, were placed in the joint account of the parties but there is no showing that any such funds ever were invested in any of the jointly owned property.

The trial court concluded that appellee furnished the Entire consideration for the purchase of all of the jointly owned property and that appellant's record interest therein was held by him as trustee of a constructive trust for the benefit of appellee. This court is called upon to determine the correctness of that determination by the trial court.

As frequently happens, this case arrived in the trial court with the record or 'paper' title to certain property being held jointly by the parties as tenants by the entireties. Ordinarily, the record title speaks for itself and upon divorce the parties become tenants in common. ¹ However, either party may establish an interest in the record or 'paper' ownership of the other party under certain well-defined circumstances.

Once a wife initially makes it appear that her separate funds supplied the entire consideration for the purchase of certain property, then, the husband's record or 'paper' interest therein is in jeopardy. Under such circumstances there is no presumption of a gift to the husband of his record interest therein; on the contrary, the presumption arises that the husband is the trustee of a resulting trust with the wife as beneficiary thereof or that a special equity exists in her favor as set forth above. In order to preserve his record interest the husband has the burden of establishing that a gift was, in fact, intended ² or of attempting to establish a 'special equity' therein.

We shall now examine the facts of this particular case in light of the controlling principles of law as set forth above.

Following marriage the parties built a home the title to which was held by the entireties. This home cost $70,000 of which $40,000 was represented by a mortgage executed by both parties and the cash difference paid by appellee. This home was thereafter sold and there is no showing in the record that any proceeds from the sale amounted to anything more than the cash furnished by appellee. Thereafter, the parties built a second home which cost $100,000 and the title to which was held by the entireties. Appellee paid the entire purchase price in cash, however, a mortgage...