BETTY J. CATO, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN S. CATO, 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 case, the Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's award of marital home possession to the wife, granting her exclusive use and possession until the minor child reaches majority or emancipation, rather than the limited six-month award granted below. The court affirmed other aspects of the dissolution judgment, including custody and the attorney's fees allocation.
The court held that under the circumstances, the wife should have been awarded exclusive possession of the marital home until the minor child attains majority or becomes emancipated, rather than only six months. The court affirmed the trial court's other determinations, finding no abuse of discretion regarding the denial of the home as lump sum alimony or the allocation of attorney's fees.
[1] A trial court should award a custodial parent exclusive possession of the marital home until the minor child attains majority or becomes emancipated.
[2] Partition of the marital home must be delayed until the termination of the custodial parent's exclusive possession.
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“Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court should have awarded the wife exclusive possession of the marital home until the minor child attains majority or becomes emancipated.”
The court's holding regarding the primary error in the trial court's award of possession of the marital home.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were divorcing with a minor child born in April 1970. The trial court awarded custody of the child to the wife (appellant) with liberal vi…
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 Lump Sum Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
The wife appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which denied her request for the marital home as lump sum alimony. Appellant further contends that the trial court erred in failing to award to her the exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home until the parties’ minor child reaches majority or is otherwise emancipated.1 Finally, appellant asserts error in the trial court’s order that each party pay his or her own attorney’s fees and costs. We agree with the wife that she should have been awarded the exclusive use and possession of the marital home. Appellant’s other arguments fail to show an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
Custody of the minor child of the parties was awarded to appellant with liberal rights of visitation granted to appellee.2 Additionally, the trial court granted appel-lee’s request for partition, but awarded to appellant “the exclusive use and possession of the former marital home for a period of six months ... or until such time as the home is sold, whichever occurs first in time.”
Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court should have awarded the wife exclusive possession of the marital home until the minor child attains majority or becomes emancipated. Bullard v. Bullard, 413 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Zeller v. Zeller, 396 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Judge v. Judge, 370 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Dolch v. Dolch, 368 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). See also Alford v. Alford, 364 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); McNaughton v. McNaughton, 332 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So. 2d 424 (Fla.1977). Therefore, this cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of an order granting appellant the exclusive use and possession of the marital home until the minor child reaches majority or is otherwise emancipated. Partition of the property is to be delayed until the termination of appellant’s exclusive possession. The final judgment is otherwise affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with the holding herein.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur. . The child was born in April 1970.
. Appellee has not challenged the custody decision of the trial court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cabrera v. Cabrera, 484 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…h the issue of whether the custodial parent should be awarded exclusive use and possession of the marital home until the children reach majority or the parent remarries have almost without exception answered the question affirmatively. Cato v. Cato, 432 So. 2d 768 (Fla.2d DCA 1983); Cutler v. Cutler, 421 So. 2d 585 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Pino v. Pino, 418 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Bullard v. Bullard, 413 So. 2d 1238 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Florence v. Florence, 400 So. 2d 1018 (Fla.1st DCA 1981); Zeller v. Zeller…
Authorities Cited
- Monserrate B. McNAUGHTON v. McNAUGHTON, 332 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Zeller v. Zeller, 396 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Alford v. Alford, 364 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Bullard v. Altha Elaine Bullard, 413 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Desmond G. Judge v. Judge, 370 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Carraway v. Carraway, 368 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Dolch v. Dolch, 368 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)