Mr. Smith is a client who is involved in a bitter divorce in Family Court in Dallas, Texas. Mr. Smith and his soon to be ex-wife had agreed to split community property equally, but here is now an argument over what is considered to be community property. Mrs. Smith had accumulated a substantial amount of jewelry, which she purchased with community money, or was given to her by her spouse over the 20 years of the marriage. She is refusing to split the value of the jewelry because she insists that it is her separate property. Her attorney has requested the court to order that the jewelry in question be deemed to be Mrs. Smith's separate property and that Mr. Smith is not entitled to half of the value. Mrs. Smith's attorney has filed a brief with the court, citing cases that he believes supports the position of Mrs. Smith.

Your supervising attorney has asked that you check the citations for the court opinions included in the brief filed by Mrs. Smith's attorney. Please read the opinions on Westlaw and determine the following:

a. Whether the opinions are on point, and why or why not

b. Whether opinions are primary mandatory, primary persuasive, or non-authorities for a court in Dallas, Texas, and why or why not

c. Whether the opinions support Mrs. Smith's contention, and why or why not

548 So.2d 699

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Third District.

Albert RUIZ, Appellant,

v.

Rosanna RUIZ, Appellee.

No. 88-2539.

July 18, 1989.Rehearing Denied Sept. 27, 1989.

Synopsis

In a dissolution case, a husband appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court, Dade County, Bernard Jaffe, J., which distributed marital property. The District Court of Appeal held that jewelry worth $215,000 which was purchased during the marriage with marital funds, as a gift from the husband to the wife, was subject to equitable distribution under provision including interspousal gifts during the marriage as marital assets.

Reversed and remanded.

Procedural Posture(s): On Appeal.

West Headnotes (1)West Headnotes

Grid ViewList View

1Divorce

134k718Gifts and inheritance

Two-hundred-fifteen-thousand dollars worth of jewelry purchased during marriage with marital assets as gift from husband to wife was subject to equitable distribution under provision defining marital assets to include interspousal gifts during the marriage. West's F.S.A. 61.075.

1 Case that cites this headnote

Attorneys and Law Firms

*699 Edward C. Vining, Jr. and Thomas B. Scott, Miami, for appellant.

Richard G. Dunberg, South Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and LEVY, JJ.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The husband appeals a final judgment in a dissolution of marriage case. The wife cross-appeals. We address only one point raised by the husband and reverse on that basis. We have considered the remaining points advanced by both parties and find they are without merit.

The husband claims it was error for the trial court to characterize $215,000 in jewelry purchased with marital assets as "gifts to the wife and therefore not subject to division." We agree. The jewelry here under dispute was not a single item such as in Burnham v. Burnham, 343 So.2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), nor an item coming from a source outside the marriage as in Sihler v. Sihler, 376 So.2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Rather, the Ruiz jewelry represents an asset accumulated as a result of a course of conduct whereby twenty per cent of the couple's marital funds were so invested over a period of years. The husband testified that the jewelry was purchased for investment. The wife testified that the jewelry represented gifts made by *700 the husband. The trial court found for the wife on this issue so it is clear the gift was bestowed upon the wife. However, it is uncontroverted that the jewelry was purchased during the marriage and with marital funds. As such, it became subject to equitable distribution.

In that regard, we find that section 61.075 Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), although not in effect at the time of the final hearing, is declaratory of existing Florida law wherein it states that "marital assets and liabilities include ... interspousal gifts during the marriage." See also Gardner v. Gardner, 452 So.2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (separate property includes assets from inheritance, property owned prior to marriage, and gifts from third parties ).

In awarding the wife all of the jewelry in addition to the otherwise equitable share of marital assets, a degree of inequity resulted that cannot be perceived as lying within the trial court's discretion.

See Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So.2d 542 (Fla.1985); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); see also Alexander v. Alexander, 479 So.2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In making its determination as to the equitable distribution of marital assets, the trial court should have included all appropriate assets. For these reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.