JEROME SIMON GUDINAS, APPELLANT,
v.
EUGENIA WANDA GUDINAS, 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 this divorce case involving a 20-year marriage with six children, the Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's order requiring the father to pay all mortgage principal, interest, insurance, and taxes on the marital home while characterizing half as his contribution as co-tenant and half as child support. The court held that the father should receive credit for his mortgage payments toward the mother's equity upon eventual sale of the home.
The trial court erred in failing to credit Mr. Gudinas for one-half of the mortgage payments upon eventual sale of the house. When a spouse is required to pay another spouse's portion of the mortgage payment, the paying spouse should receive credit for the amount his monthly payments exceed his financial responsibility as a co-tenant. Upon remand, the trial court may revisit the child support issue and award support in a different manner.
[1] A trial court may order one party to pay the principal, interest, insurance, and taxes on the marital home, with a portion of those payments considered child support.
[2] A party ordered to pay the mortgage on the marital home should receive credit for the portion of payments exceeding their financial responsibility as a co-tenant upon the…
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 agree with the parties that if Mr. Gudinas is required to pay Mrs. Gudinas's portion of the mortgage payment, he should be credited, for purpose of eventual sale of the house, in the amount his monthly mortgage payments exceed his financial responsibility as a co-tenant.”
The core holding establishing that the father must receive credit for mortgage payments toward the mother's equity upon sale of the home.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. and Mrs. Gudinas were divorced after a 20-year marriage with six children. The trial court awarded Mrs. Gudinas exclusive possession of the 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 Credit For Mortgage Payments cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
In the final judgment of dissolution of the 20 year marriage during which the parties had six children, the circuit court determined the parties would become tenants in common of the marital home with Mrs. Gudinas having exclusive possession of the home until the youngest child reached age eighteen. The court ordered Mr. Gudinas to pay all principal, interest, insurance, and taxes on the home so long as any of the minor children resided there. One-half of these payments were to be considered his required payments as co-tenant and the other half were to be considered as partial child support. In addition, Mr. Gudinas was ordered to pay $115.00 per month per child as child support. The court also resolved other property and financial issues.
We are not persuaded by Mr. Gudi-nas’s first argument on appeal and conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in its determination of the total amount of alimony and support Mr. Gudi-nas is required to provide, see Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Mr. Gudinas also contends, however, that the circuit court erred in failing to afford him credit for one-half of the mortgage payments in the event of sale of the house and essentially requiring him to increase Mrs. Gudinas’s equity in the marital home, citing Hutcheson v. Hutcheson, 426 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). He argues that characterizing this payment as partial child support does not salvage the error, citing Jones v. Jones, 330 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
Mrs. Gudinas agrees that Mr. Gu-dinas is entitled to credit for half of the mortgage payment, but contends that on remand the trial court should be allowed the opportunity to award additional child support in place of this support measure.
We agree with the parties that if Mr. Gudinas is required to pay Mrs. Gudinas’s portion of the mortgage payment, he should be credited, for purpose of eventual sale of the house, in the amount his monthly mortgage payments exceed his financial responsibility as a co-tenant. However, because of our reversal on this point, upon remand the circuit court may revisit the issue of child support and award support in a different manner. See Jones, supra.
Reversed and remanded.
ERVIN, C.J. and SHIVERS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Danoff v. Burton H. Danoff, 501 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…the other cotenant to pay all of the obligations of the 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 providin…
-
Abolsky v. Abolsky, 532 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…rd, we reverse and remand. Under the final judgment, the award merely memorialized the father’s already existing obligation as a tenant in common to pay half the mortgage, and failed to impose any further obligation upon him. Cf. Gudinas v. Gudinas, 471 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (one-half of ordered payment of entire mortgage on marital home properly considered required payment as cotenant; other half considered child support). Compare Pastore v. Pastore, 497 So. 2d 635 (Fla.1986) (order directing paymen…
-
Mummaw v. Mummaw, 532 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ormer husband is entitled to a credit for funds expended by him, in excess of his obligation as a cotenant, for the mortgage and maintenance of the marital home during the period of the former wife’s exclusive use and possession. Gudinas v. Gudinas, 471 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Jones v. Jones, 330 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Because the former husband’s obligation, with respect to the expenses of the marital home, was denominated in the final judgment as child support, we note, as in Gudinas and Jo…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Jones v. Jones, 330 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Marban v. State, 426 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Vincente Delgado v. State, 426 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)