Wright v. Wright, 79-217
| Decision Date | 08 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-217,79-217 |
| Citation | 388 So.2d 1319 |
| Parties | George C. WRIGHT, Appellant, v. Ruby M. WRIGHT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Hennings, Tavares, for appellant.
W. B. Hunter, Tavares, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered by the Circuit Court for Lake County which denied the husband a special equity in real and personal property held by the parties as tenants by the entirety and property in Indiana held by the wife individually.
Appellant, George C. Wright, and appellee, Ruby M. Wright, were married on December 20, 1969. During the marriage, appellant conveyed real property in Florida, a $1,000.00 savings account, two $10,000.00 certificates of deposit, and fifteen shares of bank stock to himself and his wife as tenants by the entirety. He also transferred to the wife, individually, real property he owned in Indiana.
Appellant raises as error the court's failure to award him a special equity in this property.
Mr. Wright contends that he is entitled to a special equity in Mrs. Wright's interest in all property which had been owned by him on the date of the marriage. There is no dispute that he had purchased or acquired all of this property during his first marriage and that appellee had made no contribution toward the acquisition or purchase of the property. Mr. Wright explains that he conveyed the property to avoid probate expenses if he should predecease Mrs. Wright. Appellee says that her interest was for the purpose of providing security.
These factual circumstances bring into play the application of Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976), which overturned the law established by Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, 252 So.2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Steinhauer, decided after the 1968 revision of the Florida Constitution, held that there was no longer any distinction between the property rights of men and women. A conveyance from a husband to a wife was presumed to be a gift as was a conveyance from a wife to a husband-an understandable result which comported with reason. The deed meant what it said unless the grantor could prove otherwise. The presumption could be overcome but it was the grantor's burden to prove that no gift was intended.
Ball v. Ball revised the rule and under the guise of doing away with all presumptions stated:
Either spouse has the right to attempt to establish a 'special equity' in the realty by reason of his or her extraordinary contribution toward its acquisition, either financially or through personal industry and service to the other party. The other party, of course, can negate the attempted showing or affirmatively attempt to show that a gift was intended .... Consistent with prior decisional law, however, we 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. In these cases the property should be awarded to that spouse, as if the tenancy were created solely for survivorship purposes during coverture, in the absence of contradictory evidence that a gift was intended. (Emphasis supplied.)
Id. at 7. The effect of the decision, however, was to raise yet another presumption: a presumption that a special equity is created by an unrebutted showing that all consideration for property held as tenants by the entirety was supplied by one spouse from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship. Now the burden is on the grantee to establish, by "contradictory" evidence, that a gift was intended. In sum, the grantee must overcome the presumption of the special equity.
To make a valid gift, a donor or grantor must have an unqualified right to the property he transfers. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marsh v. Marsh, 80-451
...evidence, that a gift was intended. In sum, the grantee must overcome the presumption of the special equity." Wright v. Wright, 388 So.2d 1319, 1321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The evidence clearly showed that the wife entered the present marriage owning the house in her name, she paid all of the ......
-
West v. West, 80-343
...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 that Ball is not retroactive because Ball was decided in 1976 and the marital home was purchased after Mr. ......
-
Moore v. Moore, 80-1328
...may call into question the effectiveness of the gift to the parties. In this case we do not reach that question.6 Wright v. Wright, 388 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Marsh v. Marsh, 399 So.2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (Cowart, J., dissenting).7 Atkins v. Atkins, 326 So.2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA ......
-
Sudholt v. Sudholt
...partition is REVERSED and REMANDED to the trial court for partition of the home. ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur. 1 Wright v. Wright, 388 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). ...