Lindquist v. Lindquist

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lindquist v. Lindquist

351 So. 2d 391, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16772

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 4, 1977

DocketNo. 76-1194

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 351 So. 2d 391 (Lindquist v. Lindquist) 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

Lindquist v. Lindquist, 351 So. 2d 391, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16772 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of dissolution. The only point which merits discussion concerns the disposition of a mobile home.

The parties were married on January 11, 1975. Shortly thereafter, the husband used $6,000 of his own funds to purchase a mobile home and caused it to be titled in the names of himself and his wife. The parties separated several months later, and a suit for dissolution was filed on September 8, 1975. In the final judgment the court awarded the mobile home to the husband.

This court recently held that where a wife’s separate funds were used to purchase property held as tenants by the entirety subsequent to the adoption of Florida’s 1968 Constitution but before the Supreme Court’s opinion in Ball v. Ball, 385 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976), there existed a presumption that a gift had been made.¹ While there has been a split of authority in the case of a wife’s separate funds,² until the Supreme Court rendered its Ball opinion the use of a husband’s separate funds to acquire property held as tenants by the entirety has always resulted in the presumption of a gift.³

This suit was filed prior to the date of the Ball opinion. Therefore, since the record is totally devoid of any evidence to rebut the presumption of a gift, the judgment must be reversed insofar as it deprives the wife of her one-half interest in the mobile home. See Section 689.15, Florida Statutes (1975). Otherwise, the judgment is affirmed.

RYDER, J., and McNULTY, JOSEPH P. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

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

GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of dissolution. The only point which merits discussion concerns the disposition of a mobile home.

The parties were married on January 11, 1975. Shortly thereafter, the husband used $6,000 of his own funds to purchase a mobile home and caused it to be titled in the names of himself and his wife. The parties separated several months later, and a suit for dissolution was filed on September 8, 1975. In the final judgment the court awarded the mobile home to the husband.

This court recently held that where a wife’s separate funds were used to purchase property held as tenants by the entirety subsequent to the adoption of Florida’s 1968 Constitution but before the Supreme Court’s opinion in Ball v. Ball, 385 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976), there existed a presumption that a gift had been made.¹ While there has been a split of authority in the case of a wife’s separate funds,² until the Supreme Court rendered its Ball opinion the use of a husband’s separate funds to acquire property held as tenants by the entirety has always resulted in the presumption of a gift.³

This suit was filed prior to the date of the Ball opinion. Therefore, since the record is totally devoid of any evidence to rebut the presumption of a gift, the judgment must be reversed insofar as it deprives the wife of her one-half interest in the mobile home. See Section 689.15, Florida Statutes (1975). Otherwise, the judgment is affirmed.

RYDER, J., and McNULTY, JOSEPH P. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

351 So. 2d 391, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindquist-v-lindquist-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack