NANCY WERTHEIMER, APPELLANT,
v.
THEODORE WERTHEIMER, 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 partition dispute arising from a divorce decree, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of credits to the ex-wife for mortgage interest, insurance, and taxes she paid on the jointly held marital home, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding documentary evidence on technical grounds. The court affirmed the trial court's crediting of the ex-husband with rental value for rooms after the wife's exclusive occupancy right terminated.
The trial court abused its discretion in excluding the documentary evidence on technical grounds, and the ex-wife is entitled to an additional credit for one-half of the interest, insurance, and taxes payments. The trial court did not err in crediting the ex-husband with one-half of the rental value of three rooms after the wife's exclusive occupancy right terminated.
[1] A party who pays more than their share of mortgage, interest, insurance, and taxes on jointly held property, pursuant to a divorce decree granting them exclusive occupanc…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by excluding documentary evidence of payments made for mortgage, interest, insurance, and taxes on jointly held property, when such ev…
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“the ex-wife was entitled to a credit, against her husband's share of the proceeds of the partition sale, of the one-half of all the payments — including, of course, principal, interest, insurance and taxes— which was attributable to his interest in the property.”
Establishes the applicable legal standard for credits in partition cases—the paying spouse is entitled to credit for one-half of all mortgage-related payments attributable to the other spouse's interest.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a 1968 divorce judgment, Mrs. Wertheimer was granted the right to reside in the marital home but was ordered to make all mortgage payments, which s…
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.
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The ex-wife appeals from a judgment partitioning the parties’ jointly held former home.
I
The parties’ 1968 judgment of divorce granted Mrs. Wertheimer the right to reside in the home but ordered her to make all the mortgage payments — which she did. The trial court correctly ruled that, under the law, the ex-wife was entitled to a credit, against her husband’s share of the proceeds of the partition sale, of the one-half of all the payments — including, of course, principal, interest, insurance and taxes— which was attributable to his interest in the property. See Potter v. Garrett, 52 So. 2d 115 (Fla.1951); Price v. Price, 389 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), pet. for review denied, 397 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1981). In fact, however, the court credited her only with his share of the principal reduction; it disallowed credits for interest, insurance and taxes because of the absence of evidence reflecting the exact sums paid for those items. This occurred, in turn, because of the court’s refusal, on highly technical grounds relating to the timeliness and form in which it was submitted, to consider proffered documentary evidence — consisting of cancelled checks, receipts and the like— which indisputably showed those amounts. We find that, under the circumstances of this case, the exclusion of this evidence constituted an unjustified abuse of discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Akins v. Taylor, 314 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Accordingly, the judgment under review is partially reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to provide for an additional credit to the appellant of one-half of the payments for interest, insurance and taxes.
II
The appellant has demonstrated no harmful error in the lower court’s crediting the 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…dit at the time of sale of the jointly owned marital domicile for payments she made for obligations of the property during the time of her possession. Whiteley v. Whiteley, 329 So. 2d 352, 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). See also Wertheimer v. Wertheimer, 487 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Tate v. Tate, 432 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Price v. Price, 389 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1981); Guthrie v. Guthrie, 315 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Hendricks v. Hendricks, 312 So.…
-
Tinsley v. Tinsley, 490 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Singer. Thus, a person who makes mortgage payments on a home jointly held with the ex-spouse as tenants in common is entitled to a credit for the ex-spouse’s share of the ownership expenses. Wertheimer v. Wertheimer, 487 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Price v. Price, 389 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1981); Rutkin v. Rutkin, 345 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The fact that possession of the marital home is awarded to one spouse as a part of al…
-
Anne Marie Fischer v. Fischer, 503 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ts on a home jointly held with the ex-spouse as tenants in common is entitled to a credit for the ex-spouse’s share of the ownership expenses upon sale of the property. Tinsley v. Tinsley, 490 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Wertheimer v. Wertheimer, 487 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Delehant v. Delehant, 442 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Monnar v. Monnar, 422 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Kohn v. Kohn, 423 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Price v. Price, 389 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Dominik v. Domin…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Price v. Price, 389 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Potter v. Garrett, 52 So.2d 115 (Fla. 1951)
- Adkins v. Edwards, 317 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Akins v. Taylor, 314 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Bailes v. Bailes, 468 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)