Ingram v. Ingram
| Decision Date | 31 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 56015,56015 |
| Citation | 379 So.2d 955 |
| Parties | Margaret W. INGRAM, Petitioner, v. Max H. INGRAM, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
David R. Lewis of Lewis, Paul, Isaac & Castillo, Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Donald F. Perrin of Newton, Watson, Barry & Perrin, Jacksonville, for respondent.
This case is before the Court on a petition for writ of certiorari from the District Court of Appeal, First District, reported as Ingram v. Ingram, 364 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The petitioner alleges conflict with Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976), on grounds that the district court substituted its judgment for that of the trial judge, despite the fact that there was no finding that the trial judge had abused his discretion. We find conflict with Shaw v. Shaw, as well as with our recent decision in Canakaris v. Canakaris, No. 54,124, --- So.2d ---- (Fla.1980). We have jurisdiction, 1 and quash the opinion of the district court.
This controversy arises from a dissolution proceeding in which the husband claimed a "special equity" in the marital home. The wife entered this marriage with title to the home which she had purchased, with a $200 down payment, approximately ten months prior to the marriage. The parties lived in the house during the eight-year marriage. During the course of the marriage both parties contributed to the house payments. The husband, who had two daughters from a previous marriage living in the marital home, contributed the majority of each mortgage payment. The husband also paid for various repairs and improvements to the home.
In its final judgment, the trial court refused to grant the husband a "special equity" in the home. The district court of appeal reversed and found that the husband's financial contributions toward the mortgage constituted a "special equity," and remanded the case for a determination of his share. There was no finding by the district court that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the husband's claim of a "special equity."
We have recently discussed the concept of "special equity" and the discretion of the trial judge in dissolution proceedings in our decisions in Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949, No. 53,966 (Fla.1980), and Canakaris v. Canakaris, --- So.2d ----, No. 54,124 (Fla.1980). The determination of the trial judge that there was no "special equity," as we have defined it in Duncan and Canakaris, was proper. Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976). This does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vandegrift v. Vandegrift
...similar factual contexts have all dealt with the a party's salary or earnings from work during a marital relationship. See Ingram v. Ingram, 379 So.2d 955 (Fla.1980); Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949 (Fla.1980); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 368 So.2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Hottman v. Hottman, 418......
-
Colucci v. Colucci, 80-796
...1st DCA 1974), cert. dismissed, 307 So.2d 186 (Fla.1975).2 In the light of Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949 (Fla.1980), and Ingram v. Ingram, 379 So.2d 955 (Fla.1980), the wife now concedes that there is no basis for her claim of a "special equity" in any property either jointly owned or hel......
-
Roffe v. Roffe
...to "make a property settlement agreement" for them which we think has been granted by Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra, and Ingram v. Ingram, 379 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla.1980); see Blum v. Blum, supra; Bird v. Bird, 385 So.2d 1090 (Fla.4th DCA 1980); Lewis v. Lewis, 383 So.2d 1143 (Fla.4th DCA 198......
-
Tronconi v. Tronconi, 81-525
...award of the wife's property to the husband as well as vice versa. See Roffe v. Roffe, 404 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Ingram v. Ingram, 379 So.2d 955 (Fla.1980). As to the standards to be used to effectuate equitable distribution, the court in Canakaris contented itself with quoting the......
-
§ 7.05 Using Marital Funds to Pay a Premarital Mortgage or Using Separate Funds to Pay a Mortgage Loan Obtained During Marriage
...Hottman v. Hottman, 418 So.2d 304 (Fla. App. 1982). But see, Massis v. Massis, 551 So.2d 587 (Fla. App. 1989).[290] Ingram v. Ingram, 379 So.2d 955 (Fla. 1980). [291] See § 7.05[5] supra.[292] See § 7.05[3] supra.[293] See § 7.05[6] supra.[294] See, e.g., Wyatt v. Wyatt, 293 S.C. 495, 361 S......
-
Special equity and unequal distribution of assets.
...marital home cause no evidence 2d DCA 1994) presented to rebut gift presumption Ingram v. Ingram, Mortgage payments and No special equity 379 So. 2d 955 (Fla. labor invested in home 1980) owned by other spouse Knecht v. Knecht, 629 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1) Marital property: 1) Special equity 3d ......