Robertson v. Robertson
593 So. 2d 491, 1991 WL 256882 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida Statute § 61.075, real property held by spouses as tenants by the entireties is presumed to be a marital asset, regardless of its funding source. To establish a special equity, the spouse who provided separate funds for the property bears the burden of proving that a gift was not intended at the time of the conveyance.
Facts:
- David L. Robertson and Joan T. Robertson married in 1985.
- Within three months of the marriage, David Robertson purchased a home entirely with his pre-marital funds.
- Title to the newly purchased home was taken in the names of both David L. Robertson and Joan T. Robertson as tenants by the entireties.
- David Robertson testified that he did not intend to make a gift to his wife of any interest in the property.
- Joan Robertson testified that her husband told the real estate broker to put the title in both their names.
- David Robertson's Last Will and Testament contained a provision stating that "Jointly owned properties shall remain the property of my wife, JOAN T. ROBERTSON," and the marital home was their only jointly owned real estate.
Procedural Posture:
- In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the Florida trial court denied David L. Robertson's claim for a special equity in the marital home, finding he had made a gift of the property to his wife.
- David L. Robertson, as appellant, appealed to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that Joan T. Robertson, as appellee, had failed to meet her burden of proving donative intent under the precedent of Ball v. Ball.
- The Supreme Court of Florida granted review to resolve a conflict between the appellate court's decision and another district court's decision in Straley v. Frank.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Florida's equitable distribution statute, § 61.075, which presumes real property held by the entireties is a marital asset, place the burden of proof on the spouse who provided the funds from a separate source to prove that a gift was not intended?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. Florida Statute § 61.075 places the burden of proof on the contributing spouse to prove a gift was not intended. The statute preempted the contrary common law principle established in Ball v. Ball, which presumed that such a transaction was not a gift unless the non-contributing spouse could prove otherwise. The court reasoned that § 61.075(3)(a)5 explicitly creates a presumption that entireties real estate is a marital asset, regardless of who paid for it. The party claiming a special equity (the husband, in this case) now has the burden of overcoming this presumption by proving that a gift was not intended. The court found that the record contained ample support for the trial court's conclusion that the husband failed to meet this statutory burden.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in Florida family law by statutorily superseding the long-standing common law presumption from Ball v. Ball. By placing the burden of proof on the donor spouse to disprove a gift, the court reinforces the modern partnership theory of marriage underlying equitable distribution. The ruling simplifies the division of jointly titled real property, making it more difficult for a spouse who uses separate funds to acquire joint property to later reclaim it as a nonmarital asset during a dissolution. This precedent creates a strong presumption that titling property in both names is intended as a gift to the marital estate, thereby affecting property division strategy in future divorce cases.
