ARTHUR TRAGER, APPELLANT,
v.
BARBARA JOY TRAGER, 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 reversed trial court's order compelling husband to reimburse wife for real estate taxes on marital home where the dissolution judgment was silent on expense payment responsibilities.
A trial court cannot compel payment of expenses not specified in a dissolution judgment; the proper remedy is crediting the paying spouse upon sale of the property.
[1] A trial court cannot enforce payment obligations against a former spouse through post-judgment orders when the dissolution judgment is silent on expense allocation; credi…
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 case, the final judgment made the parties tenants in common of the marital home, ordered its sale, and gave the wife exclusive posses…
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 Motion To Compel Payment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM
We reverse the trial court’s post-judgment order granting the wife’s motion for reimbursement of real estate taxes paid on the marital home. The provisions of the final judgment of dissolution in this case made the parties tenants in common, ordered the sale of the marital home, and ordered the exclusive possession of the home by the wife until sale. No provision was included which delineated the responsibilities of the parties as to payment for taxes or other expenses. When the wife paid the 1987 real estate taxes, she moved for an order compelling the husband to pay his one-half share, which the court granted and directed that the husband comply with within fourteen days.
The trial court had no authority to order the husband to pay these expenses on the wife’s motion to compel payment. Since the final judgment was silent as to payment responsibilities, it cannot be enforced by compelling him to perform an act not required by the final judgment, Katz v. Katz, 417 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and where, as appellant even concedes, there is a full remedy by allowing the wife credit upon sale of the marital home for the husband’s share of expenses. See Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
Reversed.
GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Katz v. Mervyn Katz, 417 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)