RAY v. RAY, Fla., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

James G. Pace and Edmund B. Sigman, Miami Beach, for appellant. Ruff Ready, Miami, for appellee.

Judges

Roy H Chapman

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The parties, both previously divorced, married on August 16, 1948, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The husband, aged 64, conveyed a one-half undivided interest in his Dade County real estate to the wife by warranty deed five days after the marriage, with marriage alleged as the consideration for the deed. The couple cohabited for only five or six days before the wife filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty. The husband contested the deed's validity, arguing that the consideration had failed because the wife agreed to live with him for life as consideration, but he ceased cohabitation due to her conduct. The wife maintained the deed was given in consideration of marriage. The Chancellor resolved conflicting testimony in favor of the wife and upheld the deed. The husband appealed the decision.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the deed conveying one-half interest in the husband's real estate to the wife was valid considerationed by marriage or if the consideration failed due to the short cohabitation and alleged misconduct.
Whether the wife was entitled to alimony following the divorce and property conveyance.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The consideration for the deed—the wife's promise to live with the husband as his wife for life—failed due to her conduct, rendering the conveyance invalid.

Appellee's Arguments

The deed was executed in consideration of marriage, and the Chancellor's finding in favor of the wife should be upheld.
The wife contended that the deed was a valid gift based on the marriage consideration.
On cross-appeal, the wife argued for alimony, which was denied by the court.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Hargett v. Hargett, 156 Fla. 73, 23 So.2d 305	Presumption that a deed by husband to wife of real estate is intended as a gift.	Supported the presumption that the deed was a gift to the wife, upheld unless overcome by conclusive evidence.
Kollar v. Kollar, 155 Fla. 705, 21 So.2d 356	Same principle regarding presumption of gift in husband-to-wife deed.	Reinforced the legal presumption favoring the wife’s ownership.
Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So.2d 727	Presumption of gift in property conveyance between spouses.	Used to support the court’s conclusion that the deed was a valid gift.
Francis v. Francis, 133 Fla. 495, 183 So. 833	Similar application of presumption of gift in marital property conveyance.	Affirmed the Chancellor’s discretion in favor of the wife.
Scoville v. Scoville, Fla., 40 So.2d 840	Factual elements relevant to failure of consideration in marital conveyance.	Distinguished as absent in this case, supporting affirmation of the deed.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized the legal presumption that a deed from husband to wife is a gift, which stands unless overcome by conclusive evidence to the contrary. The Chancellor resolved the conflicting testimony regarding the deed’s consideration in favor of the wife, finding that the conveyance was made in consideration of marriage. The court found no abuse of discretion in this factual determination. The court distinguished the present case from Scoville v. Scoville, where the factual circumstances indicated failure of consideration, noting that such factual elements were absent here. Regarding the claim for alimony, the court reasoned that the wife’s brief cohabitation and the substantial property interest acquired by her mitigated the need for alimony or attorney fees, despite the husband's admitted mistreatment prior to separation.

Holding and Implications

The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the decree of the lower court.

The court upheld the validity of the deed conveying a one-half interest in the husband’s property to the wife, finding the consideration of marriage sufficient and not defeated by the short duration of cohabitation or the husband's allegations. The wife was not awarded alimony or attorney fees. This decision directly affects the parties by confirming the wife’s property interest and denying her alimony claims. The opinion does not establish new precedent beyond affirming established principles regarding marital property conveyances and alimony considerations.

Show full summary ...

RAY v. RAY.

CHAPMAN, Justice.

It appears by the record in this cause that the parties hereto married on August 16, 1948, at Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The husband was 64 years of age and the wife 48 when the marriage ceremony was performed. Each had previously been married and divorced. On August 21, 1948, the husband, being the owner of described real estate located in Dade County, Florida, joined by his wife, conveyed by warranty deed a one-half undivided interest in the husband's real estate to the wife, marriage being alleged as the consideration for the deed.

The parties lived together as husband and wife for a period of some five or six days. The wife filed a bill of complaint and a decree of divorce was entered on the ground of cruelty. The husband, by appropriate pleadings, contended that the consideration for the deed to the wife had failed and therefore the conveyance was invalid, as the wife had promised and agreed to live with him as his wife for the period of his natural life as a consideration for the deed; that he was forced to withdraw cohabitation because of the conduct of the wife.

The wife contended by appropriate pleadings and testimony adduced in the record to support the contention, if believed by the Chancellor, to the effect that the husband executed the deed to her in consideration of marriage. Voluminous testimony was taken, a considerable portion appearing in the record was not germane to the issues, and the Chancellor below decided the disputes and conflicts in the testimony as to the consideration for the deed in behalf of the wife and against the contentions of the husband. The husband appealed and seeks a reversal of the decree entered below.

In a deed by a husband to a wife of real estate, the presumption of law is that it was intended as a gift to the wife, which will be upheld until overcome by conclusive evidence. Hargett v. Hargett, 156 Fla. 73, 23 So.2d 305; Kollar v. Kollar, 155 Fla. 705, 21 So.2d 356; Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So.2d 727; Francis v. Francis, 133 Fla. 495, 183 So. 833, and similar cases. It has not been made to appear on this record that the Chancellor abused his discretion in settling the disputes and conflicts in the testimony favorable to the wife and against the husband. The factual element presented in Scoville v. Scoville, Fla., 40 So.2d 840, is absent in the case at bar.

Counsel for appellee by cross assignment contends that the Chancellor below erred in failing to award the wife alimony. We are not impressed with the contention. The wife lived with her husband, as shown by the record, some five or six days and acquired a deed to a one-half interest in the husband's property, being his lifetime accumulations. It is true that the husband administered to her a "shellacking" prior to the separation, but the property acquired by her in the marriage adventure will help heal her wounds and thereby assist in a prompt recovery from the alleged indignities sustained. The claims for alimony and attorney fees in this Court are denied and the decree entered below affirmed.

Affirmed.

ADAMS, C.J., and SEBRING and HOBSON, JJ., concur.

RAY v. RAY