MARGUERITE DIANNE GULLY, APPELLANT,
v.
SOLOMON JOSEPH GULLY, III, 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.
Wife's appeal from dissolution of marriage judgment denied; trial court properly rejected her claims of special equity in jointly-owned properties and did not abuse discretion on child support, but judgment amended to credit wife for half of mortgage and repair payments made post-separation.
The trial court properly denied the wife's claims of special equity in properties held as tenants by the entirety and did not abuse its discretion regarding child support, but the judgment is amended to require equal sharing of post-separation mortgage and repair payments with a charge to the wife for reimbursement.
[1] Where property is held as tenants by the entirety in a dissolution of marriage action, a spouse making post-separation mortgage and repair payments is entitled to a charg…
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 parties owned a residence and contracted to purchase a condominium apartment as tenants by the entirety. Sinc…
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 Special Equity In Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was the petitioner in this action in which a judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered. Appealing therefrom she contends the trial court erred by denying her claim of special equities in the husband’s interests in their residence premises and in a condominium apartment (for purchase or which they had contracted) owned, or in the case of the condominium to be owned, by the parties as tenants by the entirety, and that the amount ordered to be paid by the husband for child support was less than it should have been in the circumstances. On consideration thereof in the light of the record, briefs and argument, we hold no reversible error has been shown. The court properly denied the wife’s claims of special equity in said properties. See Steinhauer, v. Steinhauer, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 825. It was not demonstrated that the court abused discretion as to the amount ordered awarded for child support.
It appears since the time of the separation of the parties the payments on the mortgage and for necessary repairs on the residence premises have been made by the wife. The judgment is amended to provide that such payments or carrying charges on the said properties shall be paid by the parties equally and that the wife shall have a charge against the husband’s interests therein for one half of such amounts which she shall have paid, on his behalf, subsequent to the date of the separation.
The judgment as amended is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carole v. Knecht, 629 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…thstanding the fact that the husband’s income is many times that of the wife. In support of his position the husband cites Benz v. Benz, 557 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). See also Hughes v. Hughes, 438 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Gully v. Gully, 311 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). We are not persuaded by the husband’s argument. The cited cases must be read in light of the supreme court’s recent pronouncement in Kelly v. Kelly. In our view, Kelly clearly provides the trial court [*888] the latitude to allo…
-
Roberson v. Roberson, 401 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…r the wife exclusively should make the mortgage payments, with corresponding adjustments in their equity shares, or that both should remain responsible to make those payments. See Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Gully v. Gully, 311 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Therefore the judgment is AFFIRMED but the case is REMANDED for clarification of the court’s resolution of the money issues pertaining to the marital domicile. JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Emil Rossodivita v. The King's Surf Ltd., 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Steinhauer v. Lossie S. Steinhauer, 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)