Shaw v. Shaw
Decision Date | 09 January 2012 |
Docket Number | No. S11F1586.,S11F1586. |
Citation | 290 Ga. 354,12 FCDR 77,720 S.E.2d 614 |
Parties | SHAW v. SHAW. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Charles Claude Grile, Pooler, for appellant.
Adam P. Cerbone, Savannah, for appellee.
Janette E. Shaw (Wife) and William D. Shaw (Husband) were married on June 28, 1968, and lived together until their separation on or about August 25, 2007. A divorce action was filed on March 3, 2009, and, pursuant to the terms of a pretrial order, the only issue for resolution was the equitable distribution of certain property, including unimproved real property in Marion County, Florida, that was received from a trust created by Husband's mother, two Morgan Stanley accounts established by Husband with inherited funds, and two deeded interests of 6.67% in an apartment complex that is currently involved in litigation. After a two-day bench trial, the trial court issued a final divorce judgment and decree that divided the Florida property and the two Morgan Stanley funds equally between the parties and made no disposition of the interests in the apartment complex, thereby leaving each party with his or her own 6.67% interest. Husband applied for discretionary appeal, and this Court granted the application pursuant to the Pilot Project then in effect in domestic relations cases. For current procedure see Supreme Court Rule 34(4).
1. Husband contends that the trial court erroneously characterized the two Morgan Stanley accounts as marital property.
[Cit.]
Miller v. Miller, 288 Ga. 274, 280(2), 705 S.E.2d 839 (2010). Since the accounts were established with funds he inherited from his mother, the accounts are not subject to equitable division, Husband argues, because Coe v. Coe, 285 Ga. 863, 864(1)(a), 684 S.E.2d 598 (2009). However, while property inherited by one spouse during the course of the marriage begins as separate property, that property may be converted into a marital asset by the actions of the recipient spouse, such as the recipient spouse transferring full, partial, or joint ownership in the property to his spouse. See Miller v. Miller, supra; Coe v. Coe, supra; Lerch v. Lerch, 278 Ga. 885, 886(1), 608 S.E.2d 223 (2005).
Husband opened the two Morgan Stanley accounts for the purpose of receiving the assets he had just inherited from his mother, and he established both accounts, from the outset, in the name of him and his wife,
to be held as [joint tenants] with right of survivorship. In so doing, Husband manifested an intent to transform his own separate property into marital property. [Cits.] Because both Husband and Wife then owned an undivided one-half interest in the property, the [accounts were correctly] treated as marital property.
Lerch v. Lerch, supra. Husband contends that this principle should not apply in the present case since Wife never contributed to the value of either account and because the accounts were not commingled. However, whether or not these allegations are true, they do not vitiate the evidence that the accounts were transformed into marital property when Husband gave Wife an ownership interest in the property. Wife's name on the accounts certainly qualifies as any evidence supporting the trial court's finding of the accounts as marital property, and, thus, this enumeration is without merit.
2. Husband also contends that the trial court erred in finding that the real property located in Florida was marital property. To support this contention, Husband again argues that he inherited the property from his mother, that Wife has not contributed to the property's value, and that the property has not been commingled with other marital assets. However, when the property was inherited, Husband directed that it be deeded to him and Wife as tenants in common, thereby giving each party an undivided one-half interest in the property. As discussed above, such action by Husband constitutes some evidence that the Florida property was transformed into a marital asset. Therefore, this enumeration also is without merit.
3. Husband claims that the trial court erred by not giving him all of the couple's interest in an apartment complex. According to the record, Husband, Wife and Husband's brother bought a 20% interest in the property that was divided into three equal shares amounting to approximately 6.7% each. Therefore, with the purchase of the property, Wife acquired an ownership interest separate and distinct from Husband's. Moreover, “ ‘property acquired as a direct result of the labor and investments of the parties during the marriage is' ” marital property. Crowder v. Crowder, 281 Ga. 656, 657, 642 S.E.2d 97 (2007). The interests in the apartment complex were bought during the marriage with marital funds, thereby causing them to be marital assets subject to equitable division.
Husband, however, contends that he should be granted...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Franks
...“Damnify” means “[t]o cause loss or damage to; to injure [.]” Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.2009). 10. See, e.g., Shaw v. Shaw, 290 Ga. 354, 355(1), 720 S.E.2d 614 (2012); Bird v. Trapnell, 149 Ga. 767, 769, 102 S.E. 131 (1920); see also Wilson v. Brown, 221 Ga. 273, 278(3), 144 S.E.2d 332......
-
Zekser v. Zekser
...741 S.E.2d 631. See also Black, 292 Ga. at 695(3), 740 S.E.2d 613;Pennington, 291 Ga. at 168(4)(a), 728 S.E.2d 230;Shaw v. Shaw, 290 Ga. 354, 356(3), 720 S.E.2d 614 (2012). We find no abuse of that broad discretion in this case. With respect to the indebtedness for law school, the trial cou......
-
Calloway-Spencer v. Spencer
...concur.1 Flory v. Flory , 298 Ga. 525, 526, 783 S.E.2d 122 (2016) (citation, punctuation and emphasis omitted).2 Shaw v. Shaw , 290 Ga. 354, 354 (1), 720 S.E.2d 614 (2012) (citations and punctuation omitted).3 Flory , 298 Ga. at 526, 783 S.E.2d 122 (citations and punctuation omitted).4 See ......
-
Coursey v. Coursey, S16A0263
...Goldstein v. Goldstein , 262 Ga. 136, 414 S.E.2d 474 (1992). Marital property is subject to equitable division. See Shaw v. Shaw , 290 Ga. 354, 720 S.E.2d 614 (2012). “The law is well-settled that retirement benefits acquired during the marriage are marital property subject to equitable div......
-
§ 11.01 Transmutation by Title
...a government title designation before marriage); Mc Monagle v. Mc Monagle, 617 So.2d 373 (Fla. App. 1993). Georgia: Shaw v. Shaw, 290 Ga. 354, 720 S.E.2d 614 (2012). Illinois: In re Marriage of Gattone, 317 Ill. App.3d 346, 251 Ill. Dec. 65, 739 N.E.2d 998 (2000); In re Marriage of McCoy, 2......
-
Domestic Relations
...Id.99. Id.100. Id. But see Miller, 288 Ga. at 280, 705 S.E.2d at 845; Coe v. Coe, 285 Ga. 863, 864-65, 684 S.E.2d 598, 600-01 (2009).101. 290 Ga. 354, 720 S.E.2d 614 (2012).102. Id. at 357, 720 S.E.2d at 617.103. Id. at 355, 720 S.E.2d at 615-16.104. Id. at 355, 720 S.E.2d at 616. 105. 290 ......