Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

310 So. 2d 430

Docket No. 74-1140.

Howard v. Howard

Gloria HOWARD, Appellant, v. Robert P. HOWARD, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1975-04-04

Relies on Burns v. Burns

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1975-04-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 2003

5 state decisions

201975198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Frank Henry Molica, Merritt Island, for appellant.

¶2No appearance for appellee.

¶3DOWNEY, Judge.

¶4The final judgment of dissolution, which is the subject of this appeal, failed to award appellant a special equity in the jointly owned marital domicile. Appellant contends this was error because her parents loaned the parties Four Thousand Dollars in order for the parties to buy a home; that the parents expect to be repaid, but in view of the dissolution of the marriage she will end up having to pay the debt. Appellant relies upon Burns v. Burns, Fla.App. 1965, 174 So.2d 432, as authority for the imposition of a special equity in these circumstances.

¶5The Burns result is equitable. However, the problem here is that we are not entirely sure whether the loan from the parents was made to appellant alone or to appellant and appellee jointly. If the former, then we think a finding of a special equity in the home in favor of appellant would be justified. On the other hand, as the trial judge feared, if the loan was to both parties, the appellee might remain liable to the parents even though a special equity had been awarded to the wife to cover her obligation to the parents.

¶6The appellee failed to participate in the trial court or here, though he was served with process. The transcript is somewhat vague concerning the circumstances surrounding the making of the loan. Accordingly, it appears to us that the cause should be remanded to the trial court for the taking of further testimony regarding the loan from appellant's parents. If the court finds that the loan was actually made to appellant, then following *431 the Burns case we think a special equity should be awarded to appellant for the balance of said loan as of the final hearing. On the other hand, if the trial court determines the loan was made to the parties jointly, then the prayer for a special equity should be denied.

¶7In all other respects the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

¶8Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

¶9OWEN, C.J., and MAGER, J., concur.

/310/so2d/430 · .json · Public domain