ATSUKO NAOE CORY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN H. CORY, 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.
A former wife appeals an order requiring her to pay half of all maintenance costs on the marital home, arguing that the order improperly includes ordinary upkeep costs rather than just major maintenance as required by the dissolution judgment. The court agrees and reverses in part, holding that the wife is only responsible for major maintenance costs and the husband's labor charges only for major maintenance work.
The court holds that the wife is not responsible for ordinary upkeep and maintenance costs or charges for the husband's labor except when such labor directly relates to major maintenance. The order improperly retroactively modified the judgment without a modification request or hearing.
[1] A court cannot retroactively modify a final judgment of dissolution to require payment for ordinary upkeep and maintenance costs without a modification request, hearing,…
[2] A final judgment reserving jurisdiction to determine disputes over "major maintenance" does not authorize a court to order payment for ordinary upkeep and maintenance.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Each party shall be responsible to pay one-half (½) of the insurance, taxes and major maintenance on said property”
The critical contractual provision from the dissolution judgment that limited the wife's obligation to major maintenance only
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' final judgment of dissolution provided that each party would pay one-half of insurance, taxes, and major maintenance on the former marita…
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 Reservation Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The former wife appeals from an order ratifying and approving the report of the general master. This order found, inter alia, that the former wife failed to make certain payments to the former husband required by the final judgment of dissolution and entered judgment against her for these unpaid amounts.
The issue on this appeal arises from that provision of the unmodified final judgment of dissolution which states:
“Each party shall be responsible to pay one-half (½) of the insurance, taxes and major maintenance on said property,1 and in the event as to a dispute concerning what constitutes major maintenance, the Court hereto reserves jurisdiction to enter an appropriate Order....”
The wife contends that included in the amount found to be owing by her were ordinary upkeep and maintenance costs, as well as charges for the former husband’s labors in maintaining the house, none of which are major maintenance. We agree with this contention.
Although it is true that the trial court reserved jurisdiction to enter an appropriate order in the event of a dispute over what constitutes major maintenance, the report of the general master and the order entered thereon do not even purport to identify these items as major maintenance (nor would the evidence support such a view), but instead requires the wife to pay one-half the expenses of ordinary upkeep and maintenance, in effect retroactively modifying the final judgment of dissolution without any modification request, hearing thereon, or showing that the final judgment should be modified.
Accordingly, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order under review are reversed with directions that the amount set forth therein be reduced to the extent that it includes the maintenance costs objected to by the former wife.2 Paragraph 5 of the order under review is reversed with directions that it be modified to provide that the husband is entitled to assess against the wife labor services provided by him only in connection with major maintenance. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
. The property referred to in the above provision is the former marital home of the parties in which the husband, given the right to exclusive possession, resides with a minor child of the parties.
. These maintenance costs appear as Items 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 16, 21, 24, 30, 36, 38, 42 and 45 on Exhibit A submitted by the former husband.