Case ID: fla_160/html/0652-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: THOMAS, C. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARTHA JANE LOVEJOY v. RALPH M. LOVEJOY
    36 So. (2nd) 192
    June 29, 1948
    June Term, 1948
    En Bane
    
      
      William C. Pierce and D. Newcomb Barco, for appellant.
    
      Charles A. Robinson and Forrest Hoffman, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM:

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 overcome by conclusive evidence within the purview of Kollar v. Kollar, 155 Fla. 705, 21 So. (2nd) 356, and that accordingly the case, on this point, is ruled by Hargett v. Hargett, 156 Fla. 730, 24 So. (2nd) 305.

The decree appealed from is affirmed.

TERRELL, CHAPMAN, ADAMS, SEBRING,. and BARNS, J.J., concur.

THOMAS, C. J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

HOBSON, J., not participating.

THOMAS, C. J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

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.