HUEY F. CARTER, APPELLANT,
v.
GENEVA F. CARTER, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a dissolution judgment requiring the husband to pay mortgage, taxes, and insurance on the marital residence held as tenants in common, rejecting his argument that this unfairly enhanced the wife's equity because he retained possession and use of the property.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in requiring a spouse to pay mortgage, taxes, and insurance on marital property held as tenants in common when that spouse retains possession and use of the property.
[1] A trial court may require a spouse to pay mortgage, taxes, and insurance on marital property held as tenants in common when that spouse retains possession and use of the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage action, the marital residence was awarded to both parties as tenants in common, with the husband permitted to remain in p…
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 Division Of Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment entered in a dissolution of marriage action. Several points are raised on appeal upon which appellant relies for reversal. Among these is appellant’s contention that the court erred in requiring him to make the mortgage payments on the marital residence, as well as the payment of taxes and insurance thereon, because such requirement in effect enhances the appellee’s equity in her half of the property which is now to be owned by both as tenants in common. Appellant relies on Maroun v. Maroun, 277 So. 2d 572 (Fla. App.1973), in support of his contention. Maroun is not controlling in the case at bar. Here appellant occupies the former marital residence which is now owned by him and his former wife as tenants in common. While it is true that the mortgage payments made by him will serve to enhance her equity in the property, it is equally true that he is occupying her property. in addition to his own, since by the terms of the final judgment he was permitted to remain in possession of and enjoy the use of the former marital residence. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the trial judge abused his discretion in the entry of the final judgment.
It appearing that the appellee has sufficient funds with which to discharge her own fee obligation to her attorney, motion for attorney’s fees filed by appellee is denied.
Accordingly, the judgment reviewed herein is affirmed.
SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and BOYER and McCORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
PGA Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Golf Villas II, 813 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…When a document’s language is clear, a court cannot indulge in construction or interpretation of its plain meaning. See BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So. 2d 585, 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1986); Saltzman v. Ahem, 306 So. 2d 587, 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). The definitions as provided in Article I of the Master Declaration are as follows: (B) Base Assessment shall mean and refer to the operating funds of the Association that are utilized for the betterment of the entire commu…
Authorities Cited
- Maroun v. Ing-Marie Maroun, 277 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)