HARVEY C. SIEGEL, APPELLANT,
v.
EDNA SIEGEL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Harvey Siegel appeals a dissolution of marriage judgment that awarded the marital home and mutual funds to his wife. The appellate court reverses in part regarding the mutual funds, remanding for the trial judge to reconsider the property division under the correct legal standard established in Ball v. Ball, which abrogates the presumption of gift that the trial judge applied.
The trial court applied an abrogated standard by relying on a presumption of gift. On remand, the trial judge must make an express finding as to whether a gift was intended without applying the pre-Ball presumption. If a gift is found, the current division stands; if not, the judge may award lump sum alimony if circumstances warrant, or award all mutual funds to Mr. Siegel.
[1] A trial court's application of a presumption of gift to jointly titled property, abrogated by subsequent case law, constitutes reversible error.
[2] The date of property conveyance is irrelevant when determining the applicability of a Supreme Court decision on presumptions of gift in dissolution actions.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial judge found that this arrangement created a presumption of gift to Mrs. Siegel that Mr. Siegel did not overcome, thus, as counsel for appellee concedes, applying a standard abrogated in Ball v. Ball”
Identifies the legal error: the trial court applied an abrogated presumption of gift standard
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties married in 1968 and Mrs. Siegel petitioned for dissolution in 1981. Mr. Siegel purchased mutual funds using his own money early in the mar…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lump Sum Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Harvey Siegel appeals the final judgment of dissolution which awarded the marital home, a one-half interest in certain jointly held mutual funds, and costs and attorney’s fees to Mrs. Siegel. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
The parties married in 1968 and Mrs. Siegel petitioned for dissolution in 1981. Shortly after the marriage, Mr. Siegel, using his own money, purchased some mutual funds, and at his broker’s suggestion, titled the funds jointly with his wife. At dissolution, the trial judge found that this arrangement created a presumption of gift to Mrs. Siegel that Mr. Siegel did not overcome, thus, as counsel for appellee concedes, applying a standard abrogated in Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976).
Although this was reversible error, the trial judge did not have the benefit of our supreme court’s decision in Wright v. Wright, 422 So. 2d 306 (Fla.1982). There, the court held that Ball applies to those dissolution actions instituted after the Ball opinion became final, and that the date of the conveyance of property to the other spouse is irrelevant. The court, therefore, disapproved our decision in Hart v. Hart, 377 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). While not enamored of the result in Wright, we are nevertheless bound by it. Therefore, we remand this case to the trial judge so that he may make an express finding, without regard for the pre-Ball presumption, as to whether or not a gift was intended. If he then finds an intention to make a gift, his division of the mutual funds may stand. Marsh v. Marsh, 419 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1982). If he finds otherwise, he may, of course, if the facts and circumstances of the case dictate, make an appropriate award of lump sum alimony. If he finds neither a gift nor circumstances justifying lump sum alimony, he must award all of the mutual funds to Mr. Siegel. Our remand of this case with instructions to the trial court would, of course, not preclude either party from appealing the decision of the trial court if they should feel aggrieved. In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed. Appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees is denied.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976)
- Marsh v. Laurel J. Ising Marsh, 419 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1982)
- Hart v. Hart, 377 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Wright v. Wright, 422 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1982)