DOLORES CENTRELLA, APPELLANT,
v.
VICTOR CENTRELLA, 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 requiring the wife to pay part of the mortgage payments by diminishing her share of the property equity upon sale is inequitable and improper.
The wife appealed a divorce judgment, challenging the alimony award, the provision for occupancy of the marital home, and the husband's credit for mor…
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 Equitable Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
The wife was plaintiff in her action for divorce below. She has appealed from three portions of the final judgment of divorce. The appellant’s first point contends that the amount of alimony awarded to her was insufficient. We have closely reviewed the record on appeal and conclude the appellant has failed to show that the chancellor abused his discretion in this area. See Milander v. Milander, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 876, and cases cited therein.
As her second point on appeal, the appellant contends that the chancellor erred when he ordered as follows:
“10. * * * Only until such time as [the marital home] can be sold or partitioned is the Plaintiff, Delores CEN-TRELLA, and the children granted the right of occupancy of said home. During such pending period, the Defendant, VICTOR CENTRELLA, is directed and ordered to pay the monthly mortgage payments on said home, the utility bills, and an allowance of $20.00 per month for the gardener to keep said place in proper appearance and maintenance. The monthly mortgage payments made by the defendant after the date of this divorce shall first be deducted from the equity of the parties when the property is sold, and returned to the Defendant, VICTOR CENTRELLA, prior to- the proceeds being divided on a fifty-fifty basis.” [Emphasis added.]
The appellant’s position is that the emphasized portion above is inequitable and improper. We must agree. To require the appellant to pay part of the mortgage payments by way of diminishing her share in the property if and when it is sold, in effect relieves the husband of half of his obligation to provide a place for his wife and children to live.
We have examined appellant’s third point on appeal and find it to be without merit.
Therefore, we affirm all the provisions of the final judgment except that which was set forth above which allowed the husband to receive credit for all payments made on the mortgage. We hereby direct that the emphasized portions of the final judgment of divorce, supra, be stricken.
The judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weinman v. Weinman, 310 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…alentine v. Valentine, Fla.1950, 45 So. 2d 885. We hold to be meritorious the contention of the appellant that the husband should have been required to pay one half of the carrying charges on the residence. See Centrella v. Centrella, Fla.App.1969, 229 So. 2d 882. The judgment is hereby amended to order that from the time of the filing of our mandate in the circuit court the respondent shall pay one half of the mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and repairs on the residence premises, and that the appellant-…
-
Waters v. Waters, 310 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…by him for mortgage payments and repairs from the date of the dissolution to the date of sale. We hold that no error has been demonstrated under this point. See Howell v. Howell, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 231 and Centrella v. Centrella, Fla.App.1969, 229 So. 2d 882. The husband’s second point urges error upon the trial court’s holding that the husband must pay immediately one-half of the total purchase price of the new home. We hold that error is demonstrated and reverse this portion of the order. The trial j…
-
Connell v. Connell, 235 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…y as previously fixed at $400 per month is adequate or should be supplemented in view of the then need of the wife to pay for housing; and the divorce judgment is to be considered modified in those respects. See Centrella v. Centrella, Fla.App.1969, 229 So. 2d 882. Judgment modified, and as so modified is affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Milander v. Milander, 208 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)