Greenberg v. Greenberg

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Greenberg v. Greenberg

698 So. 2d 938, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10131, 1997 WL 559451

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 10, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2647

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 698 So. 2d 938 (Greenberg v. Greenberg) 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

Greenberg v. Greenberg, 698 So. 2d 938, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10131, 1997 WL 559451 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it included the furnishings given to her by her parents and her engagement ring as marital assets in equitable distribution. We reverse and remand because her engagement ring is non-marital property.

About one year prior to marriage, appellee gave appellant a diamond engagement ring. Three months before the wedding, appellant’s parents purchased several pieces of furniture. The furniture was delivered to appellant’s apartment after the parties were married. The trial court found that appellant’s parents intended the furniture to be a gift for both parties as spouses. The court also found that the engagement ring was an interspousal gift.

First, we hold that there was competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the furniture was intended to be a wedding gift. See Gainesville Bonded Warehouse, Inc. v. Carter, 123 So.2d 336 (Fla.1960). Next, appellee misplaces his reliance on Gill v. Shively, 320 So.2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), because here, the parties married. The trial court should not have included the engagement ring as a marital asset. See Melvik v. Melvik, 669 So.2d 328, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Accordingly, we reverse the equitable distribution provisions of the final judgment. We remand and instruct the trial court to conduct further hearings, if necessary, and to redistribute marital assets without inclusion of the engagement ring.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

STONE, C.J., and DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it included the furnishings given to her by her parents and her engagement ring as marital assets in equitable distribution. We reverse and remand because her engagement ring is non-marital property.

About one year prior to marriage, appellee gave appellant a diamond engagement ring. Three months before the wedding, appellant’s parents purchased several pieces of furniture. The furniture was delivered to appellant’s apartment after the parties were married. The trial court found that appellant’s parents intended the furniture to be a gift for both parties as spouses. The court also found that the engagement ring was an interspousal gift.

First, we hold that there was competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the furniture was intended to be a wedding gift. See Gainesville Bonded Warehouse, Inc. v. Carter, 123 So.2d 336 (Fla.1960). Next, appellee misplaces his reliance on Gill v. Shively, 320 So.2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), because here, the parties married. The trial court should not have included the engagement ring as a marital asset. See Melvik v. Melvik, 669 So.2d 328, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Accordingly, we reverse the equitable distribution provisions of the final judgment. We remand and instruct the trial court to conduct further hearings, if necessary, and to redistribute marital assets without inclusion of the engagement ring.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

STONE, C.J., and DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

698 So. 2d 938, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10131, 1997 WL 559451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenberg-v-greenberg-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack