DOUGLAS C. CHANEY, APPELLANT,
v.
ESTHER J. CHANEY, 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.
A former husband sought reimbursement for mortgage, tax, and insurance payments he made on the marital home after divorce while the home remained unsold. The court affirmed the denial of reimbursement as premature, holding that reimbursement is properly sought upon the actual sale of the property, not before.
A former spouse is not entitled to seek reimbursement for payments made on the marital home until the property is actually sold. Upon sale, the paying spouse receives a credit from the sale proceeds for the nonpaying spouse's proportionate share of the expenses.
[1] A motion for reimbursement of expenses related to a former marital home is premature if the home has not yet been sold, as required by law for such reimbursement.
[2] Upon divorce, property held as an estate by the entireties becomes a tenancy in common, imposing equal responsibility on both parties for necessary maintenance payments.
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“As such, the parties have equal responsibility to make all payments necessary to maintain their ownership of the property.”
Establishes the basic legal principle that tenants in common share equal responsibility for property maintenance expenses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Chaneys settled their divorce with an agreement providing that their former marital home would be sold with net proceeds divided equally. Until sa…
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 Right Of Reimbursement cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Douglas C. Chaney, the former husband, seeks review of the lower court’s order denying him reimbursement for one-half of the payments he has made on the parties’ former marital home since the dissolution of his marriage.
We affirm because Mr. Chaney’s motion is premature. We were not provided with a transcript of the hearing on Mr. Chaney’s motion so we do not have the benefit of the legal analysis that led the lower court to deny reimbursement to the husband.
The record before us leads us to believe that denial of reimbursement may have been in error if not based on the fact that the motion was premature. Because our affirmance is without prejudice to Mr. Chaney’s right to raise this issue at the proper time, we will discuss a spouse’s right to reimbursement for amounts expended on real property held in a tenancy in common with a former spouse.
The Chaneys entered into a settlement agreement, which was ratified in the final judgment of dissolution, that provided the former marital home would be sold and the net proceeds of the sale divided equally between them. Until the sale, Mrs. Chaney would have exclusive use and possession of the home and Mr. Chaney would pay the mortgage, tax and insurance expenses. The agreement did not address the ultimate liability for these expenses. At the time Mr. Chaney sought reimbursement for his payments, the home had not been sold.
By operation of law, upon divorce, the parties to property held as an estate by the entireties become tenants in common. Wilson v. Wilson, 279 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), cert, denied, 285 So. 2d 19 (Fla.1973); § 689.15, Fla.Stat. (1991).
As such, the parties have equal responsibility to make all payments necessary to maintain their ownership of the property. Kelly v. Kelly, 583 So. 2d 667 (Fla.1991); Lyons v. Lyons, 208 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).
Where, as here, the parties have entered into a settlement agreement that is silent as to the ultimate liability for the expenses of the property, the right of reimbursement in the paying party is established by operation of law, unless evidence is presented that the nonpaying party gave consideration to be relieved of the legal obligation to pay one-half of the expenses. Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So. 2d Í017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
Reimbursement occurs upon the sale of the marital home when the paying spouse is given a credit from the sale proceeds for the nonpaying spouse’s proportionate share of the expenses. See Whiteley v. Whiteley, 329 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Because the former marital home has not been sold, Mr. Chaney is not yet entitled to reimbursement. We affirm on the basis that his request for reimbursement is premature; however, our affirmance is without prejudice to Mr. Chaney’s right to again seek reimbursement in the trial court after the home is sold.
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. Walfrido Hernandez, 645 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…the underlying-logic of both. The essential reasoning is that a provision for post-dissolution exclusive occupancy of a residence must be read in tandem with the law of cotenancy. Janer is inconsistent with that approach. See also Chaney v. Chaney, 619 So. 2d 440, 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (applying Kelly and Brandt to a property settlement agreement). [*174] In this ease the former wife made all of the mortgage payments. In essence she paid her own one-half share and also her former husband’s one-half share. U…
-
Whitcomb v. Whitcomb, 669 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…e is obligated to pay the mortgage and some other expenses connected with the home. It may be that the wife will be entitled to a credit for these payments at the time the house is sold, thus the husband’s share may be reduced. See Chaney v. Chaney, 619 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).…
-
Burnett v. Burnett, 742 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…he proceeds of the sale be impounded subject to an ancillary proceeding to establish the credits due between the parties in order to determine the final amounts to be awarded to each of them. See § 64.051—64.071, Fla. Stat. (1997); Chaney v. Chaney, 619 So. 2d 440, 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Because the trial court failed to fully assess the rights and interests of the parties in this case, the trial court erred in entering a final judgment of partition and modification of the final judgment of disso [*862] lut…
Authorities Cited
- Kelly v. Kelly, 583 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1991)
- Helene Leslie Lyons v. Lyons, 208 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Mazel & Broche, Inc. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Miami, 279 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Whiteley v. Whiteley, 329 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Miami Herald Publ'g Co. & the Travelers Ins. Co. v. Fernandez, 285 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1973)
- Cunningham v. Romano, 285 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1973)