SHEILAH A. TRUSHEIM, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN E. TRUSHEIM, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred by failing to address a specific marital liability and remanded for further proceedings on that issue.
The wife appealed the final judgment of dissolution, arguing the court inadequately awarded rehabilitative alimony, failed to reimburse medical expens…
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 Spousal Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sheila Trusheim appeals the final judgment of dissolution of her marriage to John Trusheim. She contends that the trial court erred by awarding her an inadequate amount of rehabilitative alimony, by failing to award her reimbursement for certain medical and dental expenses incurred by the children, and by failing to assign to the husband responsibility for certain marital liabilities.1 We agree with her latter contention and remand for further proceedings.
Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1991), requires that the trial court equitably distribute marital liabilities as well as marital assets. In this case, although the trial court ordered that the husband be responsible for two specific outstanding judgments against the parties, it failed to make a finding with regard to the outstanding deficiency judgment in favor of Citizens and Southern Commercial Corporation incurred as a result of a mortgage foreclosure proceeding on the marital home. In determining responsibility for this liability on remand, the trial court must consider the contribution of each spouse to the incurring of the liability. Yates v. Yates, 577 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); § 61.075(l)(g). If it determines that the wife should be equitably responsible for a portion of the debt, then it shall have the authority, notwithstanding our affirmance of the alimony award, to make an upward adjustment in spousal support in order to do justice and equity to her. See Lorman v. Lorman, 633 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur. . One of the liabilities at issue was to the Internal Revenue Service. At oral argument, the parties conceded that the husband has since satisfied this liability. Thus, this issue is moot.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Jones, 649 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…We are also unable to determine which debts the trial court considered to be marital. Under these circumstances, we must reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings as to the plan of equitable distribution. Trusheim v. Trusheim, 643 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). ERVIN, MINER and WOLF, JJ„ concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Yates v. Yates, 577 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Billups v. State, 633 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Lorman v. Lorman, 633 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)