JAMES E. DODSON AND LORRAINE L. DODSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES L. PERSELL AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1981-01-26
No. 78-449
Before HUBBART, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.
392 So. 2d 1008 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1981) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on December 5,1978, 365 So. 2d 413, affirming the order of the Circuit Court of Dade County, in the above styled cause; and

WHEREAS, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed November 20, 1980, 390 So. 2d 704, and mandate now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment;

NOW, THEREFORE, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on February 2, 1979 is withdrawn, the judgment of this court filed December 5, 1978 is vacated and the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, the order of the trial court appealed herein is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to grant a new trial. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 3.15(b), Florida Appellate Rules).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • McCLUNG v. McCLUNG, 465 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
    …ments on the jointly held marital home which he made after the separation and before the dissolution. However, credit should be given for certain amounts paid by one spouse after the dissolution and before the sale of the home. See Tucker v. Tucker, 392 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Price v. Price, 389 So. 2d 666, 668-69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), petition for review denied, 397 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1981). Therefore, we remand in this regard so that the husband may receive any credit to which he is entitled. As to the…
  • Dugan v. Dugan, 498 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
    …Tinsley, 490 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Upon its sale, whichever party made all the mortgage payments is entitled to credit for the payments made on behalf of the other spouse. Hoyt v. Hoyt, 457 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st D.CA 1984); Tucker v. Tucker, 392 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Smith v. Smith, 390 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). This is true even if one spouse was made responsible for 100 percent of the mortgage payments by the terms of the final d…
  • Blackburn v. Wissner, 257 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw