Hedden v. Hedden

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hedden v. Hedden

402 So. 2d 536, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20839

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 19, 1981

DocketNo. 81-107

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 402 So. 2d 536 (Hedden v. Hedden) 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

Hedden v. Hedden, 402 So. 2d 536, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20839 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court awarded a special equity as to the husband’s entire interest in real property acquired by the parties jointly during the marriage. This was error because there was not an “unrebutted showing ... that all of the consideration for the property held as tenants by the entireties was supplied by [her] from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship”. Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 at 7 (Fla.1976). See also Sudholt v. Sudholt, 389 So.2d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Verace v. Verace, 383 So.2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). There was evidence offered by the wife that a portion of the down payment for the property came from her mother. However, there was no proof that money was a gift to the wife solely. In fact, the evidence showed it was a loan to both parties and what part was paid back was paid out of joint funds. The only other evidence concerning this loan was that the remainder was “cancelled.”

The Final Judgment of Dissolution is affirmed in all respects except the award of the special equity in the marital property. That portion of the Judgment is reversed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

DAUKSCH, C. J., and SHARP, and CO-WART, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court awarded a special equity as to the husband’s entire interest in real property acquired by the parties jointly during the marriage. This was error because there was not an “unrebutted showing ... that all of the consideration for the property held as tenants by the entireties was supplied by [her] from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship”. Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 at 7 (Fla.1976). See also Sudholt v. Sudholt, 389 So.2d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Verace v. Verace, 383 So.2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). There was evidence offered by the wife that a portion of the down payment for the property came from her mother. However, there was no proof that money was a gift to the wife solely. In fact, the evidence showed it was a loan to both parties and what part was paid back was paid out of joint funds. The only other evidence concerning this loan was that the remainder was “cancelled.”

The Final Judgment of Dissolution is affirmed in all respects except the award of the special equity in the marital property. That portion of the Judgment is reversed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

DAUKSCH, C. J., and SHARP, and CO-WART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 So. 2d 536, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hedden-v-hedden-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack