M. LAWRENCE REUBENS, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
MARION REUBENS, APPELLEE/GROSS 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.
The court held that the trial court erred by not determining credits for marital home expenses paid by each party post-divorce.
The parties' divorce agreement stipulated equal sharing of net proceeds from the marital home sale, with the wife paying the mortgage and the husband …
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.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm in all respects with one exception. There is no determination, in connection with the sale of the marital home, respecting the credit due each party for expenses each paid on the marital property since the divorce.
A review of the agreement between the parties shows that it provided for the wife to pay the mortgage payments and the husband to pay the insurance and taxes, and that when the house was sold they would share equally in the net proceeds. There is no explicit provision about the impact of the parties’ respective undertakings on the calculation of respective shares of the net proceeds. In Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So. 2d 1017, 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (en. banc), because the agreement was silent as to ultimate liability for the ongoing expenses, it was determined that the normal principle of law must apply. The right of reimbursement was thus established by operation of law.
The same should apply here. As the trial court indicated orally but not in its order the property expenses each of the parties paid since the divorce should be offset against each other, and half of the difference assessed against the sales proceeds share of the one who paid less of the property’s expenses. It is theoretically possible that the taxes and insurance payments of the husband exceeded the mortgage payments of the wife, but it seems unlikely. Accordingly, we remand for a proper determination, respecting the credit due each party, based on the facts of the instant case and the operation of law.
ANSTEAD, LETTS and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D'Andrea v. D'Andrea, 650 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…gave consideration to be relieved of his legal obligation to pay one-half of such expenses, we hold ' that a right of reimbursement in the paying tenant is established by operation of law. Id. at 1020 (emphasis added). See also Reubens v. Reubens, 546 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), wherein we held that because there was no specific determination [*56] at the time of the divorce regarding the credit due each party, the right to reimbursement was established by operation of law. Id. at 95. In Tinsley v. Tins…
Authorities Cited
- Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)