DONNA JEAN RUBINO, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD GENE RUBINO, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this divorce case, the Florida appellate court held that a wife who pays all mortgage, taxes, insurance, and expenses on jointly-owned marital property is entitled to either a credit against the husband's share of proceeds or to require the husband to pay one-half of the expenses. The court rejected the trial court's order requiring the wife to bear all costs while the property was jointly owned.
The wife's contention regarding payment of ownership expenses has merit. A wife who pays all mortgage, taxes, insurance, and expenses on jointly-owned property is entitled to either credit against the husband's one-half of the proceeds upon sale or is entitled to require the husband to pay one-half of the expenses. The trial court's decisions regarding the type of alimony awarded and the denial of the husband's interest in the home as lump sum alimony are affirmed.
[1] A spouse occupying a jointly owned marital home is entitled to credit for payments made towards mortgage, taxes, insurance, and maintenance against the other spouse's sha…
[2] A spouse should not be required to increase the equity of the other spouse through payments on jointly owned property.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A wife who pays all of the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and expenses on jointly—owned property is entitled to credit against the husband's one-half of the proceeds upon the sale of the property.”
Establishes the core holding that a wife paying all expenses on jointly-owned property must receive compensation either through credit or shared expense responsibility.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring the divorce proceedings, the parties were awarded the marital residence as tenants in common. The trial court ordered that the wife could resid…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tenancy In Common cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mrs. Rubino contends that the trial court erred by failing to require her husband to pay one-half of the ownership expenses on the jointly owned home during the use and occupancy by the wife and children; by awarding rehabilitative alimony rather than permanent alimony, or in not reserving jurisdiction to consider a later award of alimony; and by denying the wife the husband’s interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony. The wife’s first point has merit; the other points are affirmed. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Robinson v. Robinson, 366 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
The trial court’s order is, in pertinent part, as follows:
“The parties shall own the marital residence at 2521 Harriman Circle, Tallahas see, Florida, as tenants in common, however, the wife shall so long as she remains unmarried have the right to reside in and have possession and use of the house and lot until such time as all of the minor children of the parties has reached the age of eighteen (18) years, married or become self-supporting, died, or further order of this court, if she will pay the mortgage, reasonable maintenance, insurance and tax payments pertaining to the house for the time she resides there. After such time or if she chooses to_move out earlier, the parties as tenants in common shall become equally responsible for the mortgage, reasonable maintenance, insurance and tax payments, and shall share equally in any proceeds from the home.”
A wife who pays all of the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and expenses on jointly— owned property is entitled to credit against the husband’s one-half of the proceeds upon the sale of the property. See Schatz v. Schatz, 356 So. 2d 892 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). It is impermissible to require the wife to increase the equity of the husband by her own payments. Singer v. Singer, 342 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The wife here is entitled to either credit or is entitled to have the husband pay one-half of the expenses. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court for clarification of the above quoted portion of the judgment in accordance with this opinion. Appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees on appeal is denied.
ERVIN, Acting C. J., and MELVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 401 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…requirement that the wife be given credit on sale of the house for one-half of the mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, maintenance and upkeep on the home is also a standard provision, perhaps required by the law of joint tenancy. Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). See Power v. Power, 387 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The inclusion of unlimited sums for “maintenance” and “upkeep” goes further than may be normally appropriate. However, in this case where the court chose not to recognize t…
-
Tinsley v. Tinsley, 490 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…pikes v. Spikes, 396 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). It is impermissible, therefore, to require one spouse, by his payments on the house, to increase the equity of the other spouse. Kohn v. Kohn, 423 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Singer. Thus, a person who makes mortgage payments on a home jointly held with the ex-spouse as tenants in common is entitled to a credit for the ex-spouse’s share of the ownership expenses. Wertheimer v. Wertheimer, 487 So. 2d…
-
Smith v. Smith, 378 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…2 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). See also Maroun v. Maroun, 277 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Mintz v. Ellison, 233 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); and Spencer v. Spencer, 160 Fla. 749, 36 So. 2d 424 (1948). [e.s.] Accord, e. g., Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Singer v. Singer, supra. Hence, on remand, the husband shall be required to pay one-half of the mortgage payments, insurance, taxes and necessary repairs to the home during Mrs. Smith’s use of the residence as required by our ea…
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Maita P. Singer v. Singer, 342 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 366 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Schatz v. Elinore K. Schatz, 356 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)