SHIRLEY BAILES, APPELLANT,
v.
ALAN BAILES, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's dissolution judgment, holding that the wife was not entitled to rental compensation for her share of the marital home where the husband's obligation to pay all mortgage payments (building her equity) and the children's use of the home constituted adequate consideration.
A former spouse is not entitled to rental compensation for her share of a jointly-held marital home during the husband's exclusive possession when he is obligated to pay all mortgage payments (which increase her equity) and the children's use of the home discharges her support obligation.
[1] A former spouse is not entitled to rental compensation for her share of a jointly-held marital home where the other spouse is obligated to pay all mortgage payments (incr…
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 intelligenceIn a dissolution proceeding, the trial court granted the husband exclusive possession of the marital home incident to his custody of the children and …
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 Credit For Mortgage Payments cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
We affirm the financial aspects of the final judgment of dissolution under review on the familiar ground that each of the rulings in question represents an appropriate exercise of the trial court’s discretion. Walter v. Walter, 464 So. 2d 538, (Fla.1985); Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542, (Fla.1985); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
The only issue which requires individualized treatment is Ms. Bailes’s claim, citing Schein v. Schein, 448 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), that she was incorrectly denied compensation for the rental value of her share of the jointly-held marital home during the period that the husband was granted exclusive possession incident to his custody of the children. On this record, we find no error in this ruling because the unchallenged requirement that the husband make all of the mortgage payments, half of which will serve to increase the ex-wife’s equity, without any provision for his being given credit for her half when the home is sold, represents an expenditure for her benefit at least substantially equivalent to the rental value of her interest. See Finn v. Finn, 464 So. 2d 1266, (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Moreover, any uncompensated use of the home by the children and their custodian-father may properly have been regarded by the lower court as a discharge of her duty to contribute to their support. Wood v. Friedman, 388 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); see sec. 61.13, Fla.Stat. (1981); Siegel v. Zimmerman, 319 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anne Marie Fischer v. Fischer, 503 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…her cotenant only for actual rent received from third parties. Saleeby v. Potter, 295 So. 2d 130, 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Taylor v. Taylor, 119 So. 2d 811, 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). Second, to the extent that the husband relies upon Bailes v. Bailes, 468 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), for the proposition that the making of mortgage payments may be required as a substitute for the payment of rent to the excluded spouse, his reliance is misplaced because we did not reach that issue in Bailes, a factually disting…
-
Wertheimer v. Wertheimer, 487 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…husband with one-half of the rental value of three rooms in the home for the period after the youngest child reached majority and the right of the wife to exclusive occupancy therefore terminated under the judgment of div0orce. See Bailes v. Bailes, 468 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Adkins v. Edwards, 317 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Affirmed in part, reversed in part.…
-
Williams v. Marny S. Williams, 683 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…rve the value of the property they hold in common. When the property is sold, the parties will recapture the payments they made. A credit for mortgage payments against child support is not appropriate. The former husband relies on Bailes v. Bailes, 468 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), to support his claim for a credit. However, Bailes does not support the former husband’s position. In Bailes the former husband was the residential parent and was granted the exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home, appar…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Walter v. Walter, 464 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1985)
- Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1985)
- Siegel v. Zimmerman, 319 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Martina Schein v. Schein, 448 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Wood v. Friedman, 388 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Dade Athletic Club, Inc. v. Delaney, 464 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Finn v. Finn, 464 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)