Davis v. Davis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Davis v. Davis

355 So. 2d 196, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15313

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 1978

DocketNo. 76-2248

StatusPublished

This text of 355 So. 2d 196 (Davis v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Davis, 355 So. 2d 196, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15313 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellant/respondent/husband challenges the correctness of a final judgment which dissolved his marriage to appel-lee/petitioner/wife and determined the ownership of certain real and personal property held by the parties in their joint names.

After carefully reviewing the record and briefs, in light of the controlling principles of law, it is our opinion that (1) the chancellor was authorized to determine the equities of the spouses in the property by virtue of both the prayers found in the petition and counter-petition for dissolution of marriage and the fact that no objection to such proceeding was voiced at trial; and (2) that there was competent evidence to support the chancellor’s ruling that, by virtue of the fact that the wife had purchased the property solely from her own funds prior to 1968, she was entitled to be vested with ownership of said property on either a special equity or resulting trust theory. Hendricks v. Hendricks, 312 So.2d 792 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Walton v. Walton, 290 So.2d 110 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Ball v. Bali, 303 So.2d 32 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). See also McKenry v. McKenry, 336 So.2d 20 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Robinson v. Robinson, 340 So.2d 935 (Fla.4th DCA 1976); Ezell v. Ezell, 320 So.2d 427 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Olsen v. Olsen, 195 So.2d 864 (Fla.3d DCA 1967).

Accordingly, the final judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellant/respondent/husband challenges the correctness of a final judgment which dissolved his marriage to appel-lee/petitioner/wife and determined the ownership of certain real and personal property held by the parties in their joint names.

After carefully reviewing the record and briefs, in light of the controlling principles of law, it is our opinion that (1) the chancellor was authorized to determine the equities of the spouses in the property by virtue of both the prayers found in the petition and counter-petition for dissolution of marriage and the fact that no objection to such proceeding was voiced at trial; and (2) that there was competent evidence to support the chancellor’s ruling that, by virtue of the fact that the wife had purchased the property solely from her own funds prior to 1968, she was entitled to be vested with ownership of said property on either a special equity or resulting trust theory. Hendricks v. Hendricks, 312 So.2d 792 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Walton v. Walton, 290 So.2d 110 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Ball v. Bali, 303 So.2d 32 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). See also McKenry v. McKenry, 336 So.2d 20 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Robinson v. Robinson, 340 So.2d 935 (Fla.4th DCA 1976); Ezell v. Ezell, 320 So.2d 427 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Olsen v. Olsen, 195 So.2d 864 (Fla.3d DCA 1967).

Accordingly, the final judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 So. 2d 196, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-davis-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack