Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
328 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hill v. Hill (fladistctapp, 1996-05-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hill v. Hill
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
Id. at 7 (footnote omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robertson v. Robertson
Fla. · 1991 · confidence medium
In these cases the property should be awarded to that spouse, as if the tenancy were created solely for survivorship purposes during coverture, in the absence of contradictory evidence that a gift was intended. 335 So.2d at 7 (footnote omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Milton v. Milton
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
All presumptions which the different status of the sexes required the courts to create prior to the constitutional change, and all presumptions developed by the courts since that date are now unnecessary. 335 So.2d at 7-8 (footnotes omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Crews v. Crews
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla. 1976) provides the rule in Florida that "special equity is created by an unrebutted showing... that all of the consideration for property held as tenants by the entireties was supplied by one spouse from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship." Landay v. Landay, 429 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1983) simply adds that it is not necessary that a spouse contribute all the consideration in order to establish a special equity.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yeldell v. Yeldell
D.C. · 1988 · confidence medium
Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla.1976); see also, e.g., Palumbo v. Palumbo, 439 So.2d 232, 232-233 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983), cause dismissed, 453 So.2d 1365 (Fla.1984); Hessinger v. Hessinger, 378 So.2d 322, 323 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980). 8 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Terreros v. Terreros
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
Record title is the starting point for division of property, Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla. 1976), but not necessarily the dispositive factor.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shepherd v. Shepherd
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
However, a quote in Ward from Brown v. Brown, 429 So.2d 846, 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), quoting in turn Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla. 1976), states law which seems to apply regardless of the timing of such a title transfer.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sanford v. Sanford (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
Cf. Laws v. Laws, 364 So.2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Merrill v. Merrill, 357 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Ball, 335 So.2d at 5.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ward v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1986 · confidence medium
Heath v. Heath, supra. A court will award a special equity in separately held property only on proof that the spouse without title has made an “extraordinary contribution toward its acquisition, either financially or through personal industry and service to the other party.” Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5, 7 (Fla. 1976); see Eakin v. Eakin, 99 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1958); Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23 , 3 So. 2d 727 (1941).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vandegrift v. Vandegrift
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
This is only relevant, of course, if the oft-quoted dictum in Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla. 1976), "Ordinarily where tenants' by the entireties money is acquired with funds generated by one working spouse while the other performs normal household and child rearing responsibilities ...", is applied to this case that a special equity will not arise.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vandegrift v. Vandegrift
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
This is only relevant, of course, if the oft-quoted dictum in Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla.1976), “Ordinarily where tenants’ by the entireties money is acquired with funds generated by one working spouse while the other performs normal household and child rearing responsibilities ...”, is applied to this case that a special equity will not arise.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Gregg v. Gregg (4×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
In Landay , the supreme court explained the underpinnings of the formula it adopted as follows: In Ball , we stated that "record title ... is . .. the starting point for a property division." 335 So.2d at 7 (emphasis supplied).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ward v. Ward
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
Clearly the husband was entitled to a special equity amounting to the whole of such property. 429 So.2d at 847 (quoting Ball, 335 So.2d at 7).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Walser v. Walser
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Greer v. Greer
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
We also disagree with the husband's argument that the wife's special equity should be a lesser amount to be based upon her contribution to the purchase of the stock, to wit, one half of the $25,000 marital funds used to purchase the shares of Cardenco, Inc. To be entitled to a special equity, the wife must have made an extraordinary contribution beyond the usual contribution of a spouse to a marriage and "from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship." Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla. 1976).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Landay v. Landay (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. · 1983 · confidence medium
In these cases the property should be awarded to that spouse, as if the tenancy were created solely for survivorship purposes during coverture, in the absence of contradictory evidence that a gift was intended. 335 So.2d at 7 (footnotes omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Smith
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
In Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976), it was said, “that a special equity is created by an unrebutted showing, as was developed here, that all of the consideration for property held as tenants by the entire-ties was supplied by one spouse from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship.” Id. at 7 (footnote omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cullen v. Cullen
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla. 1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hedden v. Hedden
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 at 7 (Fla.1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) West v. West (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
The Florida Supreme Court "restated" the law on this point in Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla. 1976); Either spouse has the right to attempt to establish a `special equity' in the realty by reason of his or her extraordinary contribution towards its acquisition, either financially or through personal industry and service to the other party.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marsh v. Marsh
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] Separate property is property acquired from "a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship." Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla. 1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McIntosh v. McIntosh
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leonard v. Leonard (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
This special equity could be established by a showing that "the consideration for property held as tenants by the entireties was supplied by one spouse from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship," [3] Ball v. Ball, supra, at 7 (emphasis supplied); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 368 So.2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Forehand v. Forehand, 363 So.2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Merrill v. Merrill, 357 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Smith (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
In quashing this court's decision, the supreme court held that, "a special equity is created by an unrebutted showing, as was developed here, that all of the consideration for property held as tenants by the entireties was supplied by one spouse from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship." 335 So.2d at 7 (emphasis added).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hessinger v. Hessinger
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
Id. at 7, n. 7 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Smith
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1979 · confidence medium
Under Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla. 1976), a spouse may establish a special equity in property titled in the other's name by establishing, for example, that "all of the consideration for property held as tenants by the entireties was supplied by one spouse from a source clearly unconnected with the marital relationship." The Ball decision goes on to say, however, at note 7, that "Ordinarily a special equity will not arise where property held as tenants by the entireties is acquired with the funds generated by one working spouse, while the other spouse performs normal household and child-r…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Evers v. Evers (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1979 · confidence medium
We cannot read Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla.1976), as holding that a word or two of testimony by the recipient spouse, to the effect that the other intended a gift, obliterates the special equity resulting from an unrebutted showing that the grantor spouse acquired the property from sources entirely independent of the marriage. . . . ” That part of the final judgment inconsistent herewith is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Merrill v. Merrill (3×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1978 · confidence medium
We cannot read Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla. 1976), as holding that a word or two of testimony by the recipient spouse, to the effect that the other intended a gift, obliterates the special equity resulting from an unrebutted showing that the grantor spouse acquired the property from sources entirely independent of the marriage.
cited Cited "see" United States v. One Parcel of Real Estate at 11885 S.W. 46 Street
S.D. Fla. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976); Ashwood v. Patterson, 49 So.2d 848 (Fla.1951).
cited Cited "see" Ziemba v. Ziemba
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976).
cited Cited "see" Jones v. Jones
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976).
cited Cited "see" Johnson v. Johnson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976).
cited Cited "see" Wallace v. Wallace
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976).
cited Cited "see" Farkas v. Farkas
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976).
discussed Cited "see" Mlaska v. Mlaska
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976) (special equity is created by a showing that all of the consideration for property held as tenants by the entireties was supplied by one spouse from a source unconnected with the marital relationship in the absence of contradictory evidence that a gift was intended); Agudo v. Agudo, 449 So.2d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (same).
cited Cited "see" Brown v. Brown
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976); Eakin v. Eakin ; Heath v. Heath .
cited Cited "see" Golden v. Golden
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949 (Fla. 1980); see, Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976).
discussed Cited "see" Pepper v. Pepper
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra; Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976); Griffin v. Griffin, 375 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); compare, Parham v. Parham, 385 So.2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
cited Cited "see" Bird v. Bird
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976); Eakin v. Eakin [ 99 So.2d 854 (Fla.)]; Heath v. Heath, [ 103 Fla. 1071 , 138 So.2d 796 ].
cited Cited "see" Canakaris v. Canakaris
Fla. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976); Eakin v. Eakin ; Heath v. Heath .
cited Cited "see" Creel v. Creel
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976); Tanner v. Tanner, 194 So.2d 702 (Fla.2d DCA 1967); and Roberts v. Roberts, 101 So.2d 884 (Fla.2d DCA 1958).
cited Cited "see" Behrman v. Behrman
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976).
cited Cited "see" Smith v. Smith
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Fuller v. Fuller, 215 So.2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968) and cf. Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976).
cited Cited "see" Duncan v. Duncan
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976).
cited Cited "see" Wise v. Wise
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ball v. Ball, Sup.Ct.Fla.1976, 335 So.2d 5 .
discussed Cited "see" ZIMMERMAN
unknown court · Lew · signal: see · confidence high
See Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 , 7 (Fla. 1976) , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1991) ; see also Landay v. Landay, 429 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1983) .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Davis v. Dieujuste
Fla. · 1986 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976) (special equity is shown where all consideration for entireties property supplied by one spouse from independent source); Pyle v. Pyle, 53 So.2d 312 (Fla. 1951) (title taken jointly upon purchase by husband may be viewed as advancement on support obligation).
cited Cited "see, e.g." DiGuilio v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Shannon v. State, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Horn v. Horn
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976) (property acquired with inherited funds of one spouse); Merrill v. Merrill, 357 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (one spouse entered the marriage with possession of realty and personalty); and Green v. Green, 228 So.2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (one spouse contributed special labor toward accumulation of the other spouse’s wealth).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Samosky v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Shannon v. State, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976); Bennett v. State, 316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1975); Trafficante v. State, 92 So.2d 811 (Fla. 1957), for the same holding.
John Edward SHANNON et al., Petitioners,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
47611.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jun 30, 1976.
335 So. 2d 5
Overton.
Cited by 53 opinions  |  Published

Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, for petitioners.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Jeanne Dawes Schwartz and Michael M. Corin, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.

By the Court:

The First District Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, has held that comments on petitioners' right to remain silent which were made during closing remarks to a jury by a legal intern prosecuting these cases for the state "bordered on error, but the trial court's instruction was enough to render the remarks as harmless." 320 So.2d 855, 856. That decision conflicts with our more recent decision in Bennett v. State, 316 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1975), where we held that any comment on an accused's exercise of his right to remain silent is reversible error, without regard to the harmless error doctrine.

The decision of the district court is reversed on the basis of Bennett, and the case is remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment of the trial court and grant petitioners a new trial.

OVERTON, C.J., and ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, J., dissents.