Jurasek v. Jurasek (2011)

If the subject property is jointly titled, and the parties’ conduct during the marriage demonstrates joint ownership, the party asserting that no gift was intended must do more than make an “unsubstantiated claim, raised for the first time during a dissolution proceeding.” [citations omitted] Further, “[i]t is irrelevant how the funds were received or how much each party contributed.” 3 Jurasek v. Jurasek, 67 So. 3d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citing David, 58 So. 3d at 3…

If the subject property is jointly titled, and the parties’ conduct during the marriage demonstrates joint ownership, the party asserting that no gift was intended must do more than make an “unsubstantiated claim, raised for the first time during a dissolution proceeding.” [citations omitted] Further, “[i]t is irrelevant how the funds were received or how much each party contributed.” Jurasek v. Jurasek, 67 So. 3d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citing David, 58 So. 3d at 336…

"Where the parties stipulate that the court will reserve the issue of attorney's fees to be decided at a subsequent hearing, such an agreement is binding upon the court and ruling on the issue contrary to the stipulation is erroneous." Jurasek v. Jurasek, 67 So. 3d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also Singer v. Singer, 347 So. 3d 364 , 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (same); Flores v. Flores, 666 So. 2d 605, 605 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (same).

As in Singer V, 211 So. 3d at 154 , we note that “[w]here the parties stipulate that the court will reserve the issue of attorney’s fees at a subsequent hearing, such an agreement is binding upon the court and ruling on the issue contrary to the stipulation is erroneous.” Jurasek v. Jurasek, 67 So. 3d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

All claims formerly identified as special equity, and all special equity calculations, are abolished and shall be asserted either as a claim for unequal distribution of marital property and resolved by the factors set forth in subsection (1) or as a claim of enhancement in value or appreciation of nonmarital property.”); Jurasek v. Jurasek, 67 So.3d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

In 2008, however, the legislature amended the equitable distribution statute to provide that “[sjpecial equity is abolished” and that “[a]ll claims formerly identified as special equity, and all special equity calculations, are abolished and shall be asserted as either a claim for unequal distribution of marital property ... or as a claim of enhancement in value or appreciation of non-marital property.” Ch. 2008-46, § 1, Laws of Fla.; see also § 61.075(11), Fla. Stat. (2013)…

The law is clear (a) that the titling of the property in the parties’ names as tenants by the entireties during the marriage renders the home “marital property” subject to equitable distribution, see § 61.075(6)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2010); Jurasek v. Jurasek, 67 So.3d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); David v. David, 58 So.3d 336, 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), review denied, 75 So.3d 1244 (Fla.2011); (b) that doing so raises a presumption that the transfer was a gift to both parties, s…

See, e.g., Jurasek v. Jurasek, 67 So.3d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (finding error in trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees “where the court and the parties had agreed that all issues pertaining to the wife’s request for fees would be reserved and heard at a subsequent hearing”).