LINDA BARRON ROMANS, APPELLANT,
v.
A. ROBERT ROMANS, 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 family law appeal, the former wife challenges the trial court's distribution of proceeds from the marital home sale and denial of prejudgment interest on alimony and child support arrearages. The appellate court reversed certain awards regarding repairs, maintenance credits, and mortgage payments, and reversed the denial of prejudgment interest, while affirming other aspects of the trial court's orders.
The court reversed the awards for repairs and maintenance credits, the full credit to the former husband for repairs and expenses, and the full credit for mortgage payments. The court held that the former wife is entitled to prejudgment interest on alimony and child support arrearages from the date such payments were due, and that she should only reimburse the former husband for her proportionate fifty percent share of mortgage payments.
[1] Parties are bound by the terms of their original stipulation and agreement, as incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, and by their subsequent or…
[2] Awards of credits for repairs and maintenance made by parties are to be recalculated absent competent evidence of reasonable and necessary major repairs.
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“The parties and the trial court are bound by the terms of the parties' original stipulation and agreement, as incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, and by their subsequent oral agreement made in April 1989.”
Establishes that both the stipulation and the oral agreement are binding on the parties and the court
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 and their final judgment incorporated a stipulation and separation agreement regarding the marital home. In April 1989, they made…
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 Stipulation Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
The former wife appeals several orders of the trial court 1) determining the appropriate distribution of proceeds from the sale of the former marital home and 2) denying prejudgment interest on alimony and child support arrearages. The parties and the trial court are bound by the terms of the parties’ original stipulation and agreement, as incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, and by their subsequent oral agreement made in April 1989. See Everett v. Everett, 561 So. 2d 1267, 1268 (1st DCA), rev. den., 576 So. 2d 286 (Fla.1990); Bingemann v. Bingemann, 551 So. 2d 1228, 1231-32 (1st DCA1989), rev. den., 560 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1990); Agerskov v. Gabriel, 596 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA1992); Mandy v. Williams, 492 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA1986).
The oral agreement provided that, until the real property sold, Appellant and Appellee would each pay one-half of the mortgage payments, the former wife would maintain the inside of the former marital home, and the former husband would keep up the yard and maintain the unoccupied home in preparation for resale. We are compelled to reverse the following awards: 1) credits to both parties for repairs and maintenance made by each pursuant to section 15 of the separation agreement and the final judgment; 2) credit to the former husband for the full amount of repairs and expenses to maintain the former marital home pursuant to the oral agreement, and 3) credit to the former husband for the full amount of his purported mortgage payments.
Additionally, we find ample decisional support for our holding that the trial court erred in failing to award prejudgment interest on alimony and child support arrearages. Melvin v. Melvin, 391 So. 2d 691 (1st DCA1980), pet. for rev. den., 399 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1981); Holt v. Holt, 596 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA1992); Applegate v. Applegate, 566 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA1990); Ledford v. Leirer, 486 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA1986).
We affirm the orders in all other respects.
Absent any evidence on which the trial court could base a finding that the amounts spent by Appellant and Appellee were for “reasonable and necessary major repairs” pursuant to their original agreement, those awards are to be recalculated based on competent evidence submitted by the parties. Potter v. Garrett, 52 So. 2d 115 (Fla.1951); Leatherwood v. Sandstrom, 583 So. 2d 390, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA1991); Iodice v. Scoville, 460 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA1984). Because the evidence regarding the amount of the mortgage payments allegedly paid by the former husband is not consistent with either the amounts shown in his composite exhibit or with the amount actually awarded, we are compelled to reverse that award for a determination of the proper amount due.
We note that the former wife should be ordered to reimburse the former husband only her proportionate fifty per cent share, not the entire amount credited to him for mortgage payments. See Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So. 2d 1017, 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA1988). Likewise, the trial court is to determine which of the costs of repairs and expenses made by the former husband pursuant to the oral agreement are reasonable and necessary, and to award him proper credit pursuant to Brandt.
Finally, we conclude that the former wife is entitled to prejudgment interest on alimony and child support arrearages from the date such payments were due. Melvin; Holt. We remand for further proceedings consistent with the decisions cited herein and with the parties’ agreements.
AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED and REMANDED in part for further proceedings.
SMITH and KAHN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Warner v. Warner, 692 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…ution. We agree that interest should have been awarded on the child support arrear-age. See Nelson-Higdon v. Higdon, 680 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (failure to award prejudgment interest on accrued support arrearage is error); Romans v. Romans, 611 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (holding that wife was entitled to prejudgment interest on alimony and child support arrearages from the date those payments were due). Accordingly, we remand for imposition of the appropriate rates of statutory interest. We dis…
-
Thurman v. Thurman, 637 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…by payment of the purge amount assigned by the trial court. On Mrs. Thurman’s cross appeal we find the trial court abused its discretion by failing to reduce the arrearages owed to a final judgment including prejudgment interest. Romans v. Romans, 611 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (error for trial court to fail to award prejudgment interest on alimony and child support arrearages); O’Hara v. O’Hara, 564 So. 2d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (“Trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the wife a…
-
Nelson-Higdon v. Higdon, 680 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…PER CURIAM. Appellant challenges portions of a supplemental final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We find no error except as to the trial court’s failure to award prejudgment interest on the accrued support arrearage. See Romans v. Romans, 611 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (wife entitled to prejudgment interest on support arrearages from date such payments were due); Holt v. Holt, 596 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Applegate v. Applegate, 566 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Melvin v. Melvin, 391 S…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Bingemann v. Bingemann, 551 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Melvin v. Melvin, 391 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Potter v. Garrett, 52 So.2d 115 (Fla. 1951)
- Mandy v. Williams, 492 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Applegate v. Applegate, 566 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Holt v. Holt, 596 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Southpointe Pharmacy v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 596 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Iodice v. Scoville, 460 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- W. Am. Ins. Co. & the Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Lloyd, 460 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)