Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

326 So. 2d 49

Gaunt v. Gaunt

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 28, 1976

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1976-01-28

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1991

1 state decisions

Relies on 252 So. 2d 825 - Steinhauer v. Steinhauer · 122 So. 2d 230 - Tucker v. Daugherty · Ball v. Ball

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1976-01-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

STOKES, ROBERT G., Associate Judge.

¶1The principal point in this case is whether the trial judge erred in allowing the husband to assert an oral counterclaim for special equity in real property owned jointly by the parties. The oral counterclaim was made during the trial and over the objections of wife’s counsel.

¶2Although Rule 1.190(a), RCP, allows amendments to conform with the evidence by leave of court, this court has previously held in Tucker v. Daugherty, Fla.App.2d, 1960, 122 So.2d 230:

. . . Amendments under Rule 1.15(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F. S.A. of course, can be made at any time, but they must not prejudice the opposing parties.

¶3In view of the current law with respect to the presumption of gifts in marital relationships,1 the appellant could properly have relied upon this presumption and, thereby, not had an ample opportunity for discovery relating to the issues presented in a special equity claim; and, also, not had the opportunity to present testimony to refute husband’s claim for the special equity. Accordingly, the cause is reversed as to this point and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶4The remaining points on appeal have been considered and, being found to be without merit, are affirmed.

¶5Reversed and remanded.

BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.

¶6. See Ball v. Ball (Fla.App.2d, 1974), 303 So.2d 32; Steinhauer v. Steinhauer (Fla.App.4th, 1971), 252 So.2d 825.

/326/so2d/49 · .json · Public domain