Lovejoy v. Lovejoy, (1948)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 5
Judges: PER CURIAM:
Attorneys: William C. Pierce and D. Newcomb Barco, for appellant.
Charles A. Robinson and Forrest Hoffman, for appellee.
Filed: Jun. 29, 1948
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: It is our conclusion that the chancellor did not err in finding the equities to be with the appellee and against the appellant and that the grounds alleged for divorce had been proven. See Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071 , 138 So. 796 ; McMillan v. McMillan, 120 Fla. 209 , 162 So. 524 . It is also our conclusion that with respect to certain property purchased entirely with the husband's funds and placed in the joint names of both husband and wife, the presumption of a gift to the wife has been ove
Summary: It is our conclusion that the chancellor did not err in finding the equities to be with the appellee and against the appellant and that the grounds alleged for divorce had been proven. See Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071 , 138 So. 796 ; McMillan v. McMillan, 120 Fla. 209 , 162 So. 524 . It is also our conclusion that with respect to certain property purchased entirely with the husband's funds and placed in the joint names of both husband and wife, the presumption of a gift to the wife has been over..
More
I cannot agree to the ruling that the estates by the entirety should be upset because the husband, 53 years old with enough business acumen to amass a fortune, didn't know what he was doing.
Source: CourtListener
