MARSH v. MARSH

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 60823.

Attorney(S)

Robert J. Buonauro, Orlando, for petitioner. Ed Leinster, Orlando, for respondent.

Judges

Parker Lee McDonald

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns a petition to review a decision regarding the final judgment of a dissolution of marriage between Arthur Wayne Marsh and Laurel J. Ising Marsh. The parties married on October 7, 1978. Two months after the marriage, the wife executed a quit claim deed transferring her home, which she owned prior to the marriage, to both spouses as tenants by the entireties. The wife continued to pay all mortgage payments and property taxes. The dissolution petition was filed on February 13, 1979. At trial, the wife asserted the transfer was made to secure a home for her children from a previous marriage and that the property was to be transferred back to her in the event of a divorce. The husband contended the transfer was a gift. The trial court found for the husband and ordered the home partitioned and sold. The district court reversed, holding no credible evidence supported the gift intent finding by the trial court. This appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida addresses the conflict between these rulings.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the wife acquired a special equity in the marital home through the transfer of the property as tenants by the entireties.
What constitutes sufficient evidence to rebut a presumption of a gift in the context of property transferred between spouses shortly after marriage.
The appropriate standard for evaluating conflicting testimony regarding the grantor's intent behind the property transfer.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner (Husband) Arguments

The transfer of the property was a gift from the wife to both spouses as tenants by the entireties.

Respondent (Wife) Arguments

The transfer was intended to provide a home for her children from a previous marriage in the event of her death.
In the event of divorce, the property was to be transferred back to her, indicating no gift was intended.
The wife paid all mortgage payments and property taxes, evidencing a special equity in the property.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976)	Established that a special equity may arise when one spouse supplies all consideration for property held as tenants by the entireties from a source unconnected with the marriage; such equity can be defeated by evidence of a gift intent.	Used as the controlling precedent to assess whether the wife’s payment of mortgage and tax obligations created a special equity and whether contradictory evidence of gift intent existed.
Marti v. Marti, 377 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. dismissed 383 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 1980)	Referenced in relation to conflicting district court interpretations of evidence required to prove intent behind property transfers between spouses.	Identified as part of the conflict among district courts regarding evaluation of contradictory evidence of intent.
Mirras v. Mirras, 202 So.2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)	Established that credibility and weight of testimony are questions for the trial court in resolving conflicts of evidence.	Supported the principle that the trial court’s findings on witness credibility are entitled to deference.
Sharp v. Sharp, 185 So.2d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)	Similar to Mirras, concerning trial court’s role in evaluating witness credibility.	Reinforced the standard that credibility determinations are within the trial court’s purview.
Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1976)	Findings of fact by the trial court are presumed correct and carry the same weight as a jury verdict.	Supported the deference owed to trial court factual findings in this case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court recognized that the sole issue was whether the wife acquired a special equity in the marital home. Under Ball v. Ball, a special equity arises when one spouse pays all consideration from a source unconnected to the marriage, but this equity can be rebutted by evidence that a gift was intended. Here, the evidence of intent was derived solely from conflicting testimony of the parties, with no contemporaneous documentation clarifying intent. The Court emphasized that assessing witness credibility and weighing conflicting testimony is the responsibility of the trial court, citing precedents that findings of fact are entitled to deference. The district court erred by substituting its judgment for the trial court’s credibility determinations. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to affirm the trial court’s ruling that the transfer was a gift, negating the wife’s claim of special equity.

Holding and Implications

The Supreme Court of Florida quashed the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The holding confirms that when intent behind a property transfer between spouses is disputed and based on conflicting testimony, the trial court’s evaluation of credibility controls. This decision directly affects the parties by affirming the trial court’s order for partition and sale of the home, denying the wife a special equity interest. No new precedent was established beyond reaffirming existing principles regarding special equity and deference to trial court findings.

Show full summary ...

ARTHUR WAYNE MARSH, PETITIONER, v. LAUREL J. ISING MARSH, RESPONDENT.

McDONALD, Justice.

This cause is before the Court on petition to review Marsh v. Marsh, 399 So.2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), which conflicts with Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976), and, Marti v. Marti, 377 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. dismissed, 383 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 1980). We have jurisdiction and quash the instant decision.

Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

The petition concerns the final judgment of a dissolution of marriage, and the sole issue is whether the wife acquired a special equity in the marital home. The parties married on October 7, 1978. Two months later the wife issued a quit claim deed transferring her home from sole ownership to the two of them as tenants by the entireties. The wife owned the home prior to the marriage and paid all of the mortgage payments and property taxes. The petition for dissolution of marriage was filed on February 13, 1979, shortly after the transfer. No children were born of the marriage, and at trial the wife alleged that she made the transfer to provide a home for her children from a previous marriage, should anything happen to her. She also claimed that in the event of a divorce the property was to be transferred back to her. The husband claimed that the transfer was a gift.

As is usually the case in this type of proceeding, neither the deed nor any other contemporaneous document contained evidence of the intent behind the transfer. The trial judge, finding almost a direct conflict in the couple's testimony, found for the husband and ordered a partition and sale of the home. The district court, interpreting Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976), reversed the trial court, holding that no credible evidence supported the court's ruling that the wife intended a gift.

In Ball we held that one way a special equity may be created is by an unrebutted showing that all of the consideration for the property held as tenants by the entireties was supplied by one spouse from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship. The special equity may be defeated, however, by "contradictory evidence that a gift was intended" at the time of the transfer.

335 So.2d at 7.

Conflict has arisen between the district courts of appeal concerning the application of what constitutes "contradictory evidence." The issue involves the proof required by the grantee to establish the intent of the grantor. When the intent behind the transfer is included within the deed or other contemporaneous document the problem is not as severe as when the evidence of intent comes from the testimony of the litigants and their supporting witnesses. Under these circumstances, the testimony is subject to obvious bias and the witnesses' credibility is naturally in question. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight given their testimony, however, is a question for the trial court. Mirras v. Mirras, 202 So.2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Sharp v. Sharp, 185 So.2d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Findings of fact by a trial court are presumed to be correct and are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict. Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1976).

See Marsh v. Marsh, 399 So.2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (Cowart, J., dissenting).

When, as here, the grantor's intent is to be determined from the conflicting testimony of the parties, it is the responsibility of the trial court to evaluate the weight and credibility of that testimony and to arrive at a determination. Our examination of the record convinces us that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence in reaching its decision. The district court improperly substituted its judgment for the trial court's in reaching a contrary decision.

The decision of the district court is quashed and remanded with instructions to affirm the judgment of the trial court.

It is so ordered.

ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, SUNDBERG and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.