ALBERT RUIZ, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSANNA RUIZ, 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.
In a dissolution of marriage case, the husband appeals the trial court's decision to award the wife $215,000 in jewelry as a gift outside the marital estate subject to equitable distribution. The Third District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that jewelry purchased with marital funds during the marriage constitutes a marital asset subject to equitable distribution, regardless of whether it was characterized as a gift.
The court held that jewelry purchased with marital funds during the marriage constitutes a marital asset subject to equitable distribution, regardless of whether it was characterized as a gift. Interspousal gifts made during the marriage using marital assets are marital property, not separate property, and must be included in the equitable distribution of the marital estate.
[1] Jewelry purchased with marital funds during a marriage constitutes a marital asset subject to equitable distribution, even if characterized as an interspousal gift.
[2] Interspousal gifts made during a marriage are considered marital assets subject to equitable distribution.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 jewelry was purchased during the marriage and with marital funds. As such, it became subject to equitable distribution.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that marital funds used to purchase assets during marriage create marital property regardless of characterization as gifts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring the marriage, the husband and wife accumulated $215,000 in jewelry over a period of years, with twenty percent of the couple's marital funds in…
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 Separate Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The husband appeals a final judgment in a dissolution of marriage case. The wife cross-appeals. We address only one point raised by the husband and reverse on that basis. We have considered the remaining points advanced by both parties and find they are without merit.
The husband claims it was error for the trial court to characterize $215,000 in jewelry purchased with marital assets as “gifts to the wife and therefore not subject to division.” We agree. The jewelry here under dispute was not a single item such as in Burnham v. Burnham, 343 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), nor an item coming from a source outside the marriage as in Sihler v. Sihler, 376 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Rather, the Ruiz jewelry represents an asset accumulated as a result of a course of conduct whereby twenty per cent of the couple’s marital funds were so invested over a period of years. The husband testified that the jewelry was purchased for investment. The wife testified that the jewelry represented gifts made by the husband.
The trial court found for the wife on this issue so it is clear the gift was bestowed upon the wife.
However, it is uncontroverted that the jewelry was purchased during the marriage and with marital funds. As such, it became subject to equitable distribution. In that regard, we find that section 61.075 Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), although not in effect at the time of the final hearing, is declaratory of existing Florida law wherein it states that “marital assets and liabilities include ... interspousal gifts during the marriage.” See also Gardner v. Gardner, 452 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (separate property includes assets from inheritance, property owned prior to marriage, and gifts from third parties).
In awarding the wife all of the jewelry in addition to the otherwise equitable share of marital assets, a degree of inequity resulted that cannot be perceived as lying within the trial court’s discretion. See Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1985); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); see also Alexander v. Alexander, 479 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In making its determination as to the equitable distribution of marital assets, the trial court should have included all appropriate assets. For these reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marshall-Beasley v. Beasley, 77 So. 3d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…t is undisputed by the parties that all of Former Husband’s jewelry gifts to Former Wife were purchased with marital funds. “Marital assets” include “[i]nterspousal gifts during the marriage.” § 61.075(6)(a)l.c., Fla. Stat. (2009); see Ruiz v. Ruiz, 548 So. 2d 699, 699-700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (reversing trial court for failing to treat the uncontroverted purchase of jewelry with marital assets as marital property subject to equitable distribution and citing § 61.075 relating to interspousal gifts as declarator…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1985)
- Gardner v. Gardner, 452 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Lore Alexander v. Alexander, 479 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Rena K. Sihler v. Sihler, 376 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Burnham v. Burnham, 343 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)