SUSAN M. CONNELL, APPELLANT,
v.
FRED W. CONNELL, 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 divorce appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of divorce and denial of the wife's counterclaim for separate maintenance, but modified the alimony award. The court increased the wife's support by requiring the husband to pay mortgage payments and property taxes on their jointly owned residence while she continues to reside there, and reserved the right for reconsideration upon the property's sale.
The court found no reversible error regarding the divorce or denial of separate maintenance. However, the alimony allowance was modified to require the husband to pay mortgage payments and property taxes on the jointly owned residence as part of his support obligation while the wife continues to reside there, and the court reserved jurisdiction to reconsider the alimony amount upon sale of the property if the wife moved for reconsideration.
[1] A trial court's award of divorce and denial of a counterclaim for separate maintenance will be affirmed if no reversible error is found in the record.
[2] Alimony awards are subject to modification based on the needs of the recipient spouse and the financial ability of the payor spouse.
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“the husband should be required to pay the mortgage payments and taxes thereon accruing subsequent to the divorce judgment, as a part of his obligation to support the wife by supplying her a place in which to reside”
The court's core holding that the husband's support obligation includes covering housing costs while the wife remains in the marital residence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband's gross income was slightly over $15,000 per year. The trial court awarded alimony of $400 per month to the wife. The parties jointly owne…
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 Support Obligation cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal by the wife from a divorce judgment in favor of the husband claims error of the court in awarding the divorce, and in denying her counterclaim for separate maintenance, and claims inadequacy in the allowance of alimony.
On consideration of the record and briefs we find no reversible error in the decision of the trial court on the issues relating to divorce and separate maintenance. With regard to the alimony allowance, the judgment should be modified to the extent set out below.
The gross income of the husband was shown to be slightly in excess of $15,000 per year. The alimony awarded was $400 a month. The parties jointly owned a residence premises, which was referred to in the brief of the appellant as a “modest home,” encumbered by a mortgage indebtedness of between $5,000 and $6,000, upon which the monthly mortgage payments were $110. By operation of law, upon entry of the divorce judgment, the parties became tenants in common of the residence property. The divorce judgment made no reference thereto.
On behalf of the wife it was earnestly contended that the alimony allowance was inadequate for her needs, in view of her physical condition requiring medical expense, and the necessity for her to pay or be charged with one half of the monthly mortgage payments and taxes on the residence property until such time as it is sold; and the need she will have to rent living accommodations after the property is sold. It appears that she is continuing to reside in the premises prior to its partition or sale.
Upon reviewing the needs of the wife and the financial ability of the husband as reflected in the record, we are inclined to agree with the contention of the appellant wife that while she continues to reside in the residence premises the husband should be required to pay the mortgage payments and taxes thereon accruing subsequent to the divorce judgment, as a part of his obligation to support the wife by supplying her a place in which to reside; and that upon sale of the residence property, requiring the wife’s removal therefrom, the matter should be re-examined in the trial court, if the wife shall so move, and a determination made as to whether, in the circumstances then prevailing, the award of alimony 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.