Sudholt v. Sudholt
| Decision Date | 15 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-843,79-843 |
| Citation | 389 So.2d 301 |
| Parties | Susan SUDHOLT, Appellant, v. Lester F. SUDHOLT, Appellee. /T4-499. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
J. Russell Hornsby, Orlando, for appellant.
W. J. Heffernan, Jr., Altamonte Springs, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final judgment for dissolution of marriage in which the court found that neither party had established a special equity in the marital home or boat and denied partition of the home.
Prior to their marriage in Missouri in 1974, the wife owned a home and the husband had purchased a sizeable amount of personal property. After liquidating their property and pooling their assets, the parties moved to Florida and used their funds to purchase property within the state. During their marriage, the husband used his fixed income which consisted of $720.00 per month in disability benefits, to support his wife and her children. No children were born of this marriage nor were any expected. Recently, the wife established a lucrative real estate business, income from which was used to purchase the marital home and boat which were both jointly titled. The court recognized a special equity in wife to the extent that she was awarded the furniture, fixtures and appliances located in the marital home.
The wife contends that the trial court erred in not awarding her a special equity in the marital home and the 1973 Glastron boat.
We conclude that the trial court was correct and affirm the denial of the special equity.
The wife contends that in view of Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976), Merrill v. Merrill, 357 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and Lindquist v. Lindquist, 351 So.2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), the denial of the special equity "does not comport with Florida law nor with logic and reason." (Brief for Appellant at 7.) We believe that appellant seeks to extend Ball even further than the supreme court intended. 1 In Ball, the court stated:
(W)e hold that a special equity is created by an unrebutted showing, as was developed here, 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.
(Emphasis added.) Id. at 7.
In the case before us, all of the consideration for acquisition of the home did not come from the wife's funds. The record reflects that the husband also liquidated his assets and while they were not as great as the wife's contribution, they were pooled with hers to acquire property in Florida. Then with the husband's support and encouragement, the wife obtained her real estate license. His funds paid for her schooling and initially helped her establish her real estate business. The test that "all of the consideration ... was supplied ... from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship" was not met. In fact, the evidence reflected that much of the consideration was derived from sources connected within the marital relationship.
The same analysis applies to the boat as there is no distinction between real and personal property. Lawless v. Lawless, 362 So.2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Dieujuste
...bar statutory partition, for a cause of action does not arise until a final judgment of dissolution is entered. See Sudholt v. Sudholt, 389 So.2d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). I would affirm the ruling of the district court finding that petitioner is barred from litigating her property claim in ......
-
Marsh v. Marsh, 80-451
...he transfers ... Before a gift can be make the donor must first own the subject of the gift." 388 So.2d at 1321.5 See Sudholt v. Sudholt, 389 So.2d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).6 Ball only says that "the property should be awarded to that spouse (the donor), as if the tenancy were created solely......
-
West v. West, 80-343
...all of the consideration for the jointly held marital property from the proceeds of his West Virginia farm, so Sudholt v. Sudholt, 389 So.2d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) does not apply and Ball does. Ball cannot be avoided, as in Wright v. Wright, 388 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), on the basis......
-
Landay v. Landay, 60948
...decision of the Second District Court of Appeal reported at 400 So.2d 43 (Fla.2d DCA 1981). It alleges conflict with Sudholt v. Sudholt, 389 So.2d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) and Snider v. Snider, 371 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So.2d 1202 (Fla.1980). We have jurisdiction p......
-
Florida's homestead realty: is it exempt from imposition of an equitable lien for nonpayment of alimony and child support?
...the note and mortgage became enforceable at that time. See Pitts v. Pastore, 561 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1990); Sudholt v. Sudholt, 389 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. (42) Freeman v. First Union National Bank, 865 So. 2d 1272, 1277 (Fla. 2004). (43) Id. See also Bankfirst v. UBS Paine Webbe......
-
Partitioning real property in dissolution of marriage actions and suits between unmarried co-tenants: credits, setoffs, ouster, division, and sale.
...Timesharing Act). (4) Id. (5) Fla. Stat. [section] 64.022 (2006); Williams v. Ricou, 196 So. 667 (Fla. 1940). (6) See Sudholt v. Sudholt, 389 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. (7) See McGriff v. Leonard, 93 So. 179 (Fla. 1922); McIntyre v. Parker, 82 So. 253 (Fla. 1919). It is permissible to file......