SHIRLEY J. SPIKES, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES L. SPIKES, SR., 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.
Wife appeals from a dissolution of marriage judgment limiting her alimony to mortgage payments on the marital home. The appellate court affirmed the alimony award but amended the judgment to clarify that mortgage payments constitute separate property maintenance obligations, not creditable alimony, to prevent the husband from improperly building equity in the marital home through his alimony payments.
The court affirmed the $285.00 monthly alimony award but amended the judgment to provide that the husband must pay one-half of the mortgage expenses separately from his alimony obligation, not as a credit against it, to prevent him from improperly building equity in the marital home while claiming tax-deductible alimony.
[1] A trial court errs by crediting alimony payments to a spouse for mortgage expenses on the marital home when that spouse is granted sole possession of the property.
[2] A spouse occupying the marital home is entitled to one-half of the mortgage expenses, including principal, interest, and taxes, which should not be credited toward their…
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 the husband to make alimony payments by paying off the mortgage, the trial court is impermissibly requiring the wife to build her husband's equity in the property.”
Establishes the core legal error—using alimony to satisfy mortgage obligations violates the wife's interests by building the husband's equity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a marriage dissolution, the trial court awarded the wife alimony of $285.00 per month (the amount of principal, interest, and taxes on the marital …
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 Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
The wife appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, contending that the trial court erred by ruling that the wife was not entitled to alimony other than payment by the husband of the mortgage expenses on the marital home. Although not argued by appellant/wife, we think it was error to credit alimony to the husband for the $285.00 monthly mortgage payments.
The trial court’s order, in pertinent part, provides:
The Petitioner/Husband shall pay to the Respondent/Wife, as alimony, the sum of $285.00 per month, until the Wife remarries, or dies or until further order of the Court, such sum being the amount of the principal, interest and taxes and is on the home place, and the same may be paid by the Husband paying the mortgage directly-
The order further provided that the wife will have the sole possession of the marital premises.
By ordering the husband to make alimony payments by paying off the mortgage, the trial court is impermissibly requiring the wife to build her husband’s equity in the property. Smith v. Smith, 390 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). As noted in Hendricks v. Hendricks, 312 So. 2d 792 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), it is the obligation of each tenant in common to pay one-half of the property expenses consisting of mortgage payments, insurance, taxes and necessary repairs. By allowing the husband to use his alimony payments for the mortgage, he is building his equity in the marital home without having to pay for it as his alimony is deductible from his income taxes. 26 U.S.C.A. § 215 (1978).
Accordingly, the judgment is hereby amended to provide that while the marital residence is occupied by the wife, and until the ultimate sale of the property thereafter, the husband will pay one-half of the mortgage expenses (principal, interest and taxes) which will not be credited toward his monthly alimony payment of $285.00.
The judgment as herein amended is AFFIRMED.
OTT, Acting C. J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tinsley v. Tinsley, 490 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…CA 1970); see Maroun v. Maroun, 277 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). This statutory property obligation is distinct from any obligation which may result from the trial court’s final judgment grant ing dissolution of the marriage. See Spikes 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 197…
-
Bailey v. Parker, 492 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…egard to the accounting between the parties. First, the law is clear that it is the obligation of each tenant in common to pay one half of all property expenses, including mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, and necessary repairs. Spikes v. Spikes, 396 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), except when a cotenant has sole possession of the property and is receiving all the profits therefrom. 12 Fla.Jur.2d, Cotenancy and Partition, § 28. Assuming the trial court relied on Mrs. Bailey’s testimony regarding the amount…
-
Nate Trachsel v. S.C.K.W., Inc., 555 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…rts, however, that he is not obliged to make any contribution toward the expenses of maintaining the common area. We entirely agree with the trial court’s conclusion to the contrary and affirm the judgment in S.C.K.W.’s favor. See Spikes v. Spikes, 396 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Mintz v. Ellison, 233 So. 2d 156, 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). We also conclude that there is substantial competent evidence in the record to support the amount awarded. Affirmed. * The remainder of the manager's salary, and other…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hendricks v. Hendricks, 312 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Smith v. Smith, 390 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)