WILLIAM S. MITCHELL, JR., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
GLORIA ANN MITCHELL, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 Florida family law appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed three issues in a dissolution of marriage case: whether the husband must contribute to household expenses on the marital home, whether he must pay children's medical and dental expenses, and whether he must maintain life insurance for child support security. The court held that mortgage, taxes, insurance, and maintenance on the marital home are joint obligations despite the wife's exclusive possession, but rejected the wife's arguments regarding life insurance requirements.
The court held that: (1) the obligation to pay mortgage, insurance, taxes, and maintenance on the marital home is shared jointly by the parties, and the wife is entitled to a credit against the husband's share of sale proceeds if she has made these payments; (2) usual and ordinary medical and dental expenses were presumably considered in determining child support, and unusual or major expenses may be addressed through application to the court; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to require life insurance, as the husband's substantial income as a medical doctor makes such security unnecessary.
[1] A trial court's final judgment of dissolution must make specific provisions for the payment of mortgage, taxes, insurance, and maintenance on the marital home when one pa…
[2] A party making payments for the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and maintenance on the marital home, after being awarded exclusive possession, is entitled to a credit against…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Since the court made no specific provision for the wife to pay these expenses and to do so would work an obvious injustice, we conclude that the obligation to pay the mortgage, insurance, taxes, and maintenance is shared jointly by the parties.”
Establishes the court's holding that home expenses are joint obligations despite the wife's exclusive possession, based on equity and the patent injustice of requiring the wife to pay them from inadequate income.
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 divorced after the trial court awarded the wife exclusive possession of the marital home and permanent periodic alimony of $1,400 per mont…
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 Payments Made cases and more on FLexlaw
UPCHURCH, Judge.
The husband appeals and the wife cross-appeals from a final judgment of dissolution. The parties have raised numerous issues on appeal, only three of which we will discuss below.
First, the wife argues that the trial court erred in failing to require the husband to contribute towards the household expenses. The court below awarded the wife exclusive possession of the marital home but made no provision for the payment of the mortgage, taxes, insurance or maintenance on the home and made no provision for a credit against the other’s share for the party making the payments. The parties have assumed that all costs in connection with the home must be paid by the wife. We do not share this conclusion because it seems obvious this was not the intention of the trial judge. The wife was awarded $1,400 per month permanent periodic alimony and $1,000 per month child support for a total monthly income of $2,400.
However, the wife, who was unemployed, lists monthly expenses of over $3,340. The monthly mortgage payment and taxes alone amount to close to $1,200. Since the court made no specific provision for the wife to pay these expenses and to do so would work an obvious injustice, we conclude that the obligation to pay the mortgage, insurance, taxes, and maintenance is shared jointly by the parties. See Farrington v. Farrington, 390 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Smith v. Smith, 378 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Singer v. Singer, 342 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Accordingly, if the wife has made all of these payments since the date of the final judgment, she is entitled to a credit against the husband’s one-half of the proceeds upon the sale of the property. Wood v. Friedman, 388 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Second, the wife contends that the trial court erred in not ordering the husband to be responsible for the children’s medical and dental expenses.1 The final judgment directs shared responsibility of decisions affecting the children’s dental and medical care but is silent as to payment of these expenses. Presumably the trial court considered the usual and ordinary medical and dental expenses in determining the amount of child support. Should unusual or major medical or dental expenses arise, application to the court may be made for an appropriate allowance.
Finally, the wife contends that the trial court erred in not requiring the husband to maintain life insurance as security for his child support obligation. While a father can be required to maintain life insurance on his own life for the benefit of his minor children as security for his obligation to pay support for children not in his custody, Eagan v. Eagan, 392 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), there is nothing in the law that requires the husband to maintain insurance unless special circumstances dictate its advisability. Waskin v. Waskin, 346 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
In Waskin, the Third District held that since Dr. Waskin was young and would be likely to earn large amounts of money in his profession, the trial court did not err in refusing to require him to maintain life insurance to secure future payments of child support. Here it is also likely that the husband, a medical doctor, will continue to earn a substantial income.
Thus we conclude that the failure of the trial court to require the husband to maintain life insurance is not an abuse of discretion.
We find no merit to the remaining issues raised on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
COBB, C.J., and LEE, R.E., Associate Judge, concur. . The trial court ordered shared parental responsibility of the parties’ two children with their primary residential care to be with the wife.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Layeni v. Kehinde A. Layeni, 843 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 834, 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Pinion v. Pinion, 818 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Baker v. Baker, 763 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); McDaniel v. McDaniel, 653 So. 2d 1076, 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 477 So. 2d 2, 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) ("[T]here is nothing in the law that requires [a spouse] to maintain insurance unless special circumstances dictate its advisability.”). However, the supreme court in Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1989), and this…
-
McDANIEL v. McDANIEL, 653 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…optical expenses incurred by the children needs to be set by the trial court which would then (with the cost of health insurance, if any) state the former husband’s “total financial exposure.” As to life insurance, we held in Mitchell v. Mitchell, 477 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), that: “there is nothing in the law that requires a spouse to maintain insurance unless special circumstances dictates its advisability.” See also Jarrell v. Jarrell, 630 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 639 So. 2d 978 (Fl…
-
Frechter v. Frechter, 548 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ed in Waskin v. Waskin, 346 So. 2d 1060, 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977): “[Tjhere is nothing in the law that requires a husband to maintain insurance for his wife or children unless special circumstances dictate its advisability.” See Mitchell v. Mitchell, 477 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); see also Fleming v. Fleming, 177 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 183 So. 2d 214 (Fla.1965). In view of the relative youth of the parties and the likelihood that Mr. Frechter will continue to earn money in his profession,…
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
- Maita P. Singer v. Singer, 342 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Farrington v. Prince Farrington, 390 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- McQUIGGAN v. State, 392 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Waskin v. Waskin, 346 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Eagan v. Eagan, 392 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Smith v. Smith, 378 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Wood v. Friedman, 388 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)