Grant v. Grant

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grant v. Grant

686 So. 2d 765, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 138, 1997 WL 14195

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 1997

DocketNo. 96-569

StatusPublished

This text of 686 So. 2d 765 (Grant v. Grant) 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

Grant v. Grant, 686 So. 2d 765, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 138, 1997 WL 14195 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Cecil W. Grant [“husband”], seeks review of certain provisions of [766]*766the final judgment of dissolution of his marriage to appellee, Faye J. Grant [“wife”]. We conclude that the trial court did not reversibly err in concluding that husband and wife each owned a one-half interest in the marital home. Although the construction of the home began before the parties’ marriage and all of the monies for the construction were contributed by husband from his separate funds, the record supports the finding that husband gifted wife with a one-half interest in the home by placing the property in both parties’ names prior to the marriage, and by depositing the funds for construction in their joint account.

We agree with appellant, however, that the lower court’s ruling on the distribution of the marital home appears inconsistent with the lower court’s failure to award appellant any interest in bonds purchased by wife with funds she also had deposited in their joint accounts. Indeed, this point was conceded by appellee at trial. The court may have determined that the appellant’s entitlement to an interest in the bonds was not asserted but the issue was tried by the consent of the parties and should be dealt with by the lower court. We remand for this purpose.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, GRIFFIN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Cecil W. Grant [“husband”], seeks review of certain provisions of [766]*766the final judgment of dissolution of his marriage to appellee, Faye J. Grant [“wife”]. We conclude that the trial court did not reversibly err in concluding that husband and wife each owned a one-half interest in the marital home. Although the construction of the home began before the parties’ marriage and all of the monies for the construction were contributed by husband from his separate funds, the record supports the finding that husband gifted wife with a one-half interest in the home by placing the property in both parties’ names prior to the marriage, and by depositing the funds for construction in their joint account.

We agree with appellant, however, that the lower court’s ruling on the distribution of the marital home appears inconsistent with the lower court’s failure to award appellant any interest in bonds purchased by wife with funds she also had deposited in their joint accounts. Indeed, this point was conceded by appellee at trial. The court may have determined that the appellant’s entitlement to an interest in the bonds was not asserted but the issue was tried by the consent of the parties and should be dealt with by the lower court. We remand for this purpose.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, GRIFFIN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

686 So. 2d 765, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 138, 1997 WL 14195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-grant-fladistctapp-1997.