Jurasek v. Jurasek
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13759
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Yolimar Jurasek filed for dissolution of seven-year marriage; assets largely amicably resolved except the marital residence and related mortgage.
- The couple purchased a Miami Beach condo titled as joint tenants by the entireties, funded in part with inheritance-related funds and gifts claimed by the husband.
- Before closing, husband’s father received $900,000 from an insurance settlement; funds were used in purchasing the Miami Beach home.
- The husband represented the funds used to buy the home included a loan and gift from him, with a later statement that the Delray Beach proceeds would repay his father’s loan.
- Trial court awarded the husband a “special equity” in the home and ordered the wife to receive $17,467, with attorney’s fees denied to the wife.
- Appellant-wife appeals, arguing the special equity award was improper and attorney’s fees should be awarded; the issue on fees was to be heard at a later stage per stipulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the husband is entitled to a special equity in the jointly titled home | Jurasek contends special equity applies due to investment of inheritance funds and loans. | Jurasek argues the funds and title arrangement justify a greater entitlement to the home in his favor as a special equity. | Special equity improper; reversal required. |
| Whether the 2008 amendment replaced special equity with unequal distribution for such claims | Jurasek claims the amendment should be prospective, applying special equity rules. | Jurasek asserts the amendment should apply to post-2008 cases. | Court adopts that the husband failed to prove entitlement under either framework; special equity not recognized. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying attorney's fees to the wife due to stipulation for later hearing | Wife contends fees resolution was reserved for a later hearing per stipulation. | Husband contends no fee award due to lack of ability to pay. | Denial of fees reversed; remanded for fee hearing consistent with stipulation. |
Key Cases Cited
- David v. David, 58 So. 3d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (non-marital funds alone do not negate a gift to spouse for marital home)
- Cintron v. King, 961 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (non-marital funds may still reflect a gift; intent controls)
- Zangari v. Cunningham, 839 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (gift/investment distinctions in marital property conveyances)
- Ray v. Ray, 624 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (financial contributions alone do not prove non-gift intent)
- Stough v. Stough, 18 So. 3d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (presumption of marital property ownership in jointly titled real estate)