Witlin v. Witlin
| Decision Date | 14 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 62-464,62-464 |
| Citation | 153 So.2d 70 |
| Parties | June WITLIN, Appellant, v. Morris M. WITLIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Eli Breger and Harvey J. St. Jean, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Robert M. McClosky, Miami Beach, for appellee.
Before HORTON, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
Appellant, plaintiff and counter-defendant below, seeks review of an adverse final decree of divorce.
On December 22, 1961, plaintiff filed a complaint for separate maintenance seeking custody of the parties' minor children and temporary and permanent alimony and support money. Defendant answered and counterclaimed for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. The counterclaim contained a list of the assets amassed by the parties during approximately twenty years of marriage, consisting, for the most part, of real estate and stocks held in their joint names. It alleged that these assets were acquired solely through the defendant's efforts without contribution by the plaintiff and placed in the joint names of the parties solely for protective reasons. It further alleged that the defendant had at no time intended to make a gift of these assets or any portion thereof to the plaintiff. The counterclaim concluded with a prayer for divorce, a declaration by the court that the assets held in the joint names of the parties were solely owned by the defendant, and a grant of such reasonable allowances for alimony and support money as the court might deem proper. Trial of the cause culminated in the final decree appealed which granted a divorce in favor of the defendant on his counterclaim. The final decree contained, inter alia, the following provision:
'The Defendant, MORRIS M. WITLIN, be and he is hereby ordered to transfer, convey and assign, free and clear, the following described property to the Plaintiff, JUNE WITLIN, as a lump sum alimony award.' [Emphasis supplied]
This was followed by a list of jointly held real estate and stocks, a one-half interest in these being awarded the appellant, plus a 1961 automobile, household goods and $10,000 in cash.
The appellant contends that as a matter of law she is entitled to a one-half interest in the real estate and stocks held in the joint names of the parties and for that reason the award of a one-half interest therein as lump sum alimony was erroneous since it in fact gave her nothing.
When title to the real estate and stocks was taken in the joint names of the parties, there arose a presumption of a gift of an interest therein to the appellant which could only be overcome by a clear, positive and unequivocal showing that no gift was intended. See Anderson v. Anderson, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 24; Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldstein v. Goldstein, 74--674
...proof that no such gift interest therein for the wife was intended. Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663; Witlin v. Witlin, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 70; Calligarich v. Calligarich, Fla.App.1971, 256 So.2d 60. In the circumstances of this case, the evidence relied upon to nega......
-
Horne v. Horne, 70--309
...overcame the presumption of the gift by clear and conclusive evidence (Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So.2d 727; Witlin v. Witlin, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 70; Holton v. Holton, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 214; Schoenrock v. Schoenrock, supra), the trial court erred in determining that the w......
-
Silvian's Estate, In re
...only be overcome by a clear, positive and unequivocal showing that no gift was intended. This principle is set forth in Witlin v. Witlin, 153 So.2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), a case specifically involving the ownership of stocks. For precedential authority the court in Witlin relied upon Anders......
-
In re Munoz, Bankruptcy No. 87-01886-BKC-AJC
...and wife. Suggs v. Estate of Suggs, 405 So.2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Losey v. Losey, 221 So.2d 417 (Fla.1969); Witlin v. Witlin, 153 So.2d 70 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1963); Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, 96 So.2d 663 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1957). 24. As entireties property, the Erskine Note could not be alienat......