PETER IODICE, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
LORETTA SCOVILLE, F/K/A LORETTA IODICE, 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 partition case following the dissolution of marriage, the appellate court held that a former husband who maintained a jointly owned marital home while raising minor children is entitled to reimbursement for one-half of the mortgage principal payments and, contrary to the trial court's ruling, one-half of the mortgage interest payments made during his occupancy.
The appellant is entitled to reimbursement for one-half of the mortgage interest payments made during his occupancy with minor children. The trial court properly denied reimbursement for rental value of the property and properly exercised discretion in limiting the award for maintenance, repairs, and improvements based on factors such as necessity and reasonableness.
[1] A party in a partition proceeding is entitled to reimbursement for one-half of the principal payments made on a mortgage during their occupancy of the property.
[2] A party in a partition proceeding is entitled to reimbursement for one-half of the interest payments made on a mortgage during their occupancy of the property.
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“We find nothing in the record to justify denying him reimbursement of the interest payments.”
Establishes that the trial court erred in refusing to award reimbursement for mortgage interest paid by the appellant during his occupancy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a divorce judgment awarding appellant custody of three children and possession of the jointly owned marital domicile, appellant made mortgag…
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 Counterclaim For Reimbursement cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment entered in a partition proceeding in which the trial court failed to award appellant one-half of the interest payments he made on the mortgage during his occupancy of the premises and certain sums he claimed for maintenance and repairs.
In the final judgment dissolving the marriage between the parties appellant was awarded custody of the parties’ three children and possession of the jointly owned marital domicile. When the last child reached majority, appellee sued to partition the property. Appellant counterclaimed for a set-off or reimbursement for principal and interest payments on the mortgage and for maintenance, repairs, and improvements made during his occupancy with the children. The trial judge refused to award appellant any credit for the interest portion of the mortgage payments and did not award a full one-half of the claimed expenditures for maintenance, repairs and improvements.
The court properly found the appellant husband entitled to reimbursement for one-half of the principal payments that he made on the mortgage. 12 Fla.Jur.2d, Cotenancy and Partition, § 65. We find nothing in the record to justify denying him reimbursement of the interest payments. On the other hand, the circuit court properly did not allow the appellee the rental value of the property during appellant’s use and occupancy thereof, because appellant’s occupancy was for the benefit of the children and pursuant to court order. Power v. Power, 387 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
The mere fact that appellant claims expenditures for maintenance, repairs and improvements does not ipso facto entitle him to an award therefor. The trial judge exercises discretion in granting or denying them depending upon the circumstances surrounding the expenditures such as need, reasonableness, and other similar factors. On this record, appellant has not demonstrated reversible error in this respect.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all respects except that, on remand, the judgment should be modified to award appellant one-half of the mortgage interest that he paid during the period of his occupancy with his minor children.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, and remanded for modification.
LETTS and WALDEN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kelly v. Kelly, 583 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1991)…McDonald, justice. We review Kelly v. Kelly, 568 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), because of conflict with Iodice v. Scoville, 460 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The issue presented is what adjustments should be made in the division of profits from the sale of what was once jointly owned marital property. The essential facts as recite…
-
Danoff v. Burton H. Danoff, 501 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…property, such as taxes, liens, and repairs, the paying cotenant has the right to reimbursement from the other cotenant for his half upon the eventual sale of the property. Gudinas v. Gudinas, 471 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Iodice v. Scoville, 460 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Horn v. Horn, 445 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Whiteley v. Whiteley, 329 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The wife correctly argues that the trial court erred in providing full credit to husband, rather than credit for one-hál…
-
Romans v. Romans, 611 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…to their original agreement, those awards are to be recalculated based on competent evidence submitted by the parties. Potter v. Garrett, 52 So. 2d 115 (Fla.1951); Leatherwood v. Sandstrom, 583 So. 2d 390, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA1991); Iodice v. Scoville, 460 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA1984). Because the evidence regarding the amount of the mortgage payments allegedly paid by the former husband is not consistent with either the amounts shown in his composite exhibit or with the amount actually awarded, we are compelle…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Power v. Power, 387 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)