BARBARA J. BILLINGS, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES M. BILLINGS, 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 a dissolution of marriage, the trial court erred by ordering the wife to sell her one-half interest in the marital home to the husband for a fixed amount and characterizing the proceeds as lump sum alimony, because a spouse cannot satisfy alimony obligations with property already owned by the other spouse.
A spouse cannot be required to convey her equal interest in jointly titled marital property at a fixed price and have that conveyance characterized as lump sum alimony.
[1] When marital property is titled in joint names and neither party has acquired a special equity, the parties hold equal interests as tenants in common, and lump sum alimon…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“If the wife is entitled to lump sum alimony then it may not be satisfied by giving her what is already hers.”
The court's explanation of why the trial court's approach was erroneous.
The marital domicile was titled in joint names, making the parties tenants in common with equal interests. The trial court ordered the wife to sell he…
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 Division Of Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal from a final order in a dissolution of marriage proceeding raises only one issue that we deem meritorious. The marital domicile was titled in joint names. Neither party was deemed to have acquired a special equity in that property. Under familiar principles the parties became ten ants in common with equal interests in the real property or the proceeds of its sale. Section 689.15, Florida Statutes (1979); Meridith v. Meridith, 366 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1978). The lower tribunal ordered the wife to sell her one-half interest to the husband for a fixed amount within a certain period of time. The proceeds are then characterized by the court as lump sum alimony to the wife. This was error. If the wife is entitled to lump sum alimony then it may not be satisfied by giving her what is already hers.
Accordingly we affirm the final judgment in all other respects but reverse those provisions dealing with lump sum alimony and requiring the wife to convey her interest to the husband for a fixed amount. On remand the trial court should make a determination as to whether lump sum alimony is appropriate and, if so, in what amount. Further, if either party is required to convey an interest in the real property to the other party then the interest to be transferred should be valued at present fair market value. Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
MOORE, HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wittenstein v. Wittenstein, 466 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…tenstein appeals from a final judgment of dissolution questioning the award to her as lump sum alimony of her own one-half interest in the marital residence held by the parties as an estate by the entireties. [*19] The court in Billings v. Billings, 406 So. 2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) stated: The marital domicile was titled in joint names. Neither party was deemed to have acquired a special equity in that property. Under familiar principles the parties became tenants in common with equal interests in t…
Authorities Cited
- Ozzie Joseph Negron and Teresa Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974)
- Meridith v. Meridith, 366 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1978)
- In re the Est. of Philip Siegel, 366 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1978)