BARBARA J. NATHANSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIAS NATHANSON, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reasonable Rental Value cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The former wife appeals a final judgment of partition entered subsequent to a dissolution of marriage. The former husband has confessed error in part, conceding that the former wife, as the paying cotenant, was entitled to reimbursement for one-half of a disputed portion of the homeowners’ insurance covering the premises. See Danoff v. Danoff, 501 So. 2d 1361, 1364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Under the method of computation followed in the final judgment, item F(i) must be reduced from $2,088 to $1,044, and the totals in the judgment must be recalculated accordingly. The trial court was entirely correct, in our view, in rejecting the former wife’s contention that she was entitled to reimbursement for the entire $2,088 insurance amount. Finally, the trial court correctly applied Barrow v. Barrow, 527 So. 2d 1373, 1377 (Fla.1988), in computing the reasonable rental value of the property.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Haskell Co. & Serv. Merchandise Co., Inc. v. The Lane Co., Ltd., 612 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…v. Elias, 544 So. 2d 255, 258-59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Subsequent decisions have held that the duty imposed upon sellers by Johnson does not require disclosure to third parties not in privity with the seller. See Wallis v. South Florida Savings Bank, 574 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Kovach v. McLellan, 564 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). III. It is clear that the doctrine of caveat emptor no longer has any application to leases of residential real property (Mansur v. Eubanks), or to sales of new or used re…
-
Windstar Club, Inc. v. WS Realty, Inc., 886 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…s signed.”). Accordingly, we reverse the [*988] dismissal of the fraudulent misrepresentation claim against WS Realty. We also reverse the dismissal of the fraudulent misrepresentation claim against Huntington Bank. See Wallis v. S. Fla. Sav. Bank, 574 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (reversing dismissal of intentional misrepresentation claim against bank). As noted in the concurring opinion in Wallis, by reversing the dismissal of an intentional misrepresentation claim against a bank, “we are merely giving th…
-
Wassall v. W.H. Payne and Dean Highfield, 682 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…eoretical underpinnings for contractual limitation of the defendants’ liability are not present in this case. We conclude that the instant case is governed by the principles enunciated by the Second District in Wallis v. South Florida Savings Bank, 574 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In Wallis, the court determined that the Wallises had stated a cause of action against South Florida Savings Bank for intentional misrepresentation in connection with obtaining the Wallises’ personal guarantee of a loan by Park B…
Authorities Cited
- Barrow v. Barrow, 527 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 1988)
- Danoff v. Burton H. Danoff, 501 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)