SANDRA M. SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
LYNN E. SMITH, 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.
Sandra M. Smith appeals from a dissolution of marriage judgment, challenging the trial court's treatment of marital home expenses and child support. The First District Court of Appeal affirms in part, reversing the provision that required the wife to pay mortgage, taxes, and insurance as "fair rental" on the husband's one-half interest, and instead grants her a credit against the husband's proceeds upon sale.
The wife is entitled to a credit against the husband's one-half of the proceeds upon the sale of the jointly-owned property for all ownership expenses she paid during exclusive occupancy. The trial court erred by treating one-half of the monthly payments as "fair rental" that would build the husband's equity without compensation to the wife.
[1] A spouse occupying jointly-owned marital property is entitled to a credit against the other spouse's share of sale proceeds for ownership expenses paid, rather than havin…
[2] A trial court errs by ordering that a portion of a spouse's mortgage payments on jointly-owned marital property constitutes fair rental for the other spouse's interest, a…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“By ordering that one-half of the monthly payments will be considered "fair rental" for the use of the Husband's one-half interest in the property, the trial court is impermissibly requiring the Wife to build her husband's equity in the property.”
Establishes the core error: the trial court's improper method of treating the wife's mortgage and tax payments as rental income to the husband's benefit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court awarded the wife exclusive possession of the marital home while it remained jointly titled as tenants in common. The wife was required…
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 Fair Rental Value cases and more on FLexlaw
LILES, WOODIE A., Associate Judge (Retired).
The Wife appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, contending that the trial court erred by failing to require the Husband to pay one-half of the ownership expenses on the home during its use and occupancy by the Wife and the minor children; by ordering that one-half of the monthly mortgage payments, taxes, and hazard insurance premiums on the marital home required to be paid by the Wife during her exclusive occupancy will be considered “fair rental” for the use of the Husband’s one-half interest in the property; by awarding only $350.00 per month child support; and by failing to award the Wife’s attorney a reasonable fee for his representation of her in the dissolution of marriage proceedings.
The trial court’s order, in pertinent part, provides:
The Respondent [husband] shall pay to the Petitioner [wife] as and for rehabilitative alimony, a sum equal to one-half of the monthly house payment, including the escrow payment for taxes and insurance, for a period of one (1) year from the date of this decree or until she remarries or moves out of the house, whichever first occurs.
The Petitioner is awarded exclusive possession of the marital homeplace . .. so long as she remains unmarried and maintains the home for the minor children of the parties. The title to the marital homeplace shall be in joint names as tenants in common, and the Petitioner will be required to maintain the mortgage payments, taxes and hazard insurance upon the home during her exclusive occupancy. One-half of the monthly payments will be considered “fair rental” for the use of the Respondent’s one-half interest in the property.
By ordering that one-half of the monthly payments will be considered “fair rental” for the use of the Husband’s one-half interest in the property, the trial court is impermissibly requiring the Wife to build her husband’s equity in the property. Waskin v. Waskin, 346 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); Singer v. Singer, 342 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). On the contrary, a wife who pays all the ownership expenses on jointly-owned property is entitled to a credit against the husband’s one-half of the proceeds upon the sale of the property. Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); See Schatz v. Schatz, 356 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). Therefore, we direct that the judgment be amended to provide that the Wife is entitled to a credit against the Husband’s one-half of the proceeds upon the sale of the jointly-owned property-
Considering the circumstances of this case, we find no error in the trial court’s award of child support or in its award of attorney’s fees to the Wife. Accordingly, the judgment as herein amended is AFFIRMED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr. and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Herndon W. Jones, Jr. v. Jones, 463 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…idence. As the husband argues, these expenses are proratable to the cotenancy ownership of the marital residence, and the trial court cannot require the husband to build the wife’s equity in the property subject to the cotenancy. See Smith v. Smith, 390 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The trial court’s final judgment directed that upon sale of the marital residence, the husband would be entitled to receive reimbursement of one-half of the payment of such e…
-
Kohn v. Emmett Lee Kohn, 423 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…lf of the expenses. Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So. 2d 539, 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Such credit is not limited only to payments of principal as the husband suggests but applies to “all the ownership expenses on jointly-owned property.” Smith v. Smith, 390 So. 2d 1223, 1224 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). We therefore reverse that portion of the final judgment, providing that the wife is to receive no credit, and direct that the judgment be amended to provide that upon the sale of the marital home the wife shall be entitl…
-
Breland v. Breland, 565 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…at where a court requires one party to a dissolution to pay all of the ownership expenses on jointly-owned property, such party is entitled to a credit against the other party’s one half of the proceeds upon the sale of the property. Smith v. Smith, 390 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Rubino v. Rubino, 372 [*369] So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Fischer v. Fischer, 503 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Delehant v. Delehant, 442 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Even where the party paying the ownership expenses is…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maita P. Singer v. Singer, 342 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Waskin v. Waskin, 346 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Schatz v. Elinore K. Schatz, 356 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)