HOWARD LUCE PARKER, HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
TERI ALMONTS PARKER, WIFE, 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.
The court held that awarding the marital domicile as lump sum alimony was inappropriate given the duration of the marriage and the source of the funds used to purchase the home.
The husband purchased the marital home with inherited funds. The wife left the marriage for a period and later returned, receiving exclusive possessio…
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 Matrimonial Domicile cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the husband from a final judgment of dissolution awarding the wife the marital domicile as lump sum alimony. The parties were married on December 19, 1975. The marital domicile was purchased twenty-three months later with funds that came exclusively from an inheritance of the husband. After only two months, the wife went to Tampa, Florida. She returned four months later and, by virtue of a temporary order, was granted exclusive possession of the marital domicile. It is undisputed that since that time she has improved the property and made the mortgage payments.
A lump sum award in a marriage of this duration and under these facts is wholly inappropriate. Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1949); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976); Hessinger v. Hessinger, 378 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
The order of the trial court is reversed and remanded with directions to restore to the husband his interest in the jointly-held property. On remand, wife will be entitled to a set-off for mortgage payments and improvements made by her. Whiteley v. Whiteley, 329 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Guthrie v. Guthrie, 315 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Since wife has now remarried, there is no issue of rehabilitative alimony presented.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vandegrift v. Vandegrift, 477 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…s another’s mortgage payments, credit for such payments is generally allowed. Dancu v. Alexander, 421 So. 2d 819 (Fla.4th DCA1982); Heinemann v. Heinemann, 314 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 106 (Fla.1976); Parker v. Parker, 405 So. 2d 1021 (Fla.3d DCA1981), dismissed, 412 So. 2d 468 (Fla.1982); Kennedy v. Kennedy, 448 So. 2d 1227 (Fla.2d DCA1984); Rutkin v. Rutkin, 345 So. 2d 400 (Fla.3d DCA1977). . Hottman v. Hottman, 418 So. 2d 304 (Fla.4th DCA1982).…
-
Hughes v. Hughes, 438 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…e the wife has moved into an apartment. The husband’s first argument is that he was entitled to credit for mortgage payments made from the time of separation until the date of the final hearing. We agree and reverse on this issue. Parker v. Parker, 405 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), dismissed 412 So. 2d 468 (Fla.1982); Dancu v. Alexander, 421 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Guthrie v. Guthrie, 315 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). The husband’s second contention is that the trial court improperly granted the…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976)
- Ashleigh M. Moye v. Moye (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- Whiteley v. Whiteley, 329 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Guthrie v. Guthrie, 315 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Hessinger v. Hessinger, 378 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)