ROBERTO COLLAZO, APPELLANT,
v.
CLARA SOTELO DE COLLAZO, 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 ex-wife was entitled to the marital residence as lump sum alimony due to her substantial contributions and special equity.
The ex-husband appealed an award of the marital residence to the ex-wife as lump sum alimony, arguing they had equal earning capacities. The ex-wife h…
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 Estate By The Entireties cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by ex-husband of an award of the marital residence as lump sum alimony to the ex-wife. He contends that the chancellor abused his discretion in the award thereof in that both parties are equal in their capabilities to earn income. We cannot agree.
Upon a dissolution of marriage, the ex-wife ordinarily becomes the owner of an undivided one-half interest as a tenant in common with her former husband in land owned by the spouses as an estate by the entirety. Nevertheless, upon proper pleadings and sufficient and proper proof, the former husband’s interest in the estate by the entireties can be awarded to the ex-wife as lump sum alimony or to the extent that she establishes a special equity therein. Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 825 and see also Latta v. Latta, Fla.App.1960, 121 So. 2d 42.
The record in the case before us reflects that the ex-wife substantially contributed to the down payment on the marital home and the maintenance thereof. In addition and more important, she made 40 out of the 49 mortgage payments due on the residence. Based upon the above evidence, the chancellor determined that this sufficiently proved up a special equity in the marital home and properly granted appellant’s interest therein to appellee as lump sum alimony. Cf. Long v. Long, Fla.App.1974, 304 So. 2d 483. No abuse of discretion having been made to appear, the judgment must be and is affirmed. See Linares v. Linares, Fla.App.1974, 292 So. 2d 63.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Rosman Charles Dieujuste, 496 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1986)…property, either as an award in lieu of lump sum alimony or because of a special equity in the property, the ownership interest of each is presumed equal. Landay v. Landay, 429 So. 2d 1197; Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976); Collazo v. Collazo, 318 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). As we noted in Ball, “[i]f property is to be divided equally, ... no judicial action is required because the law will convert that entireties tenancy to a tenancy in common as soon as the marriage is dissolved.” 335 So. 2d at 7.…
-
Caidin v. Caidin, 367 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…of alimony, of that character, by lump sum, is not improper. Bezanilla v. Bezanilla, 65 So. 2d 754 (Fla.1953); Banfi v. Banfi, 123 So. 2d 52, 53 (Fla.3d DCA 1960); Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, 252 So. 2d 825, 830 (Fla.4th DCA 1971); Collazo v. Collazo, 318 So. 2d 164 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). Appellant argues the court was without authority to award alimony in lump sum because the wife, in her petition for dissolution of marriage, did not “allege a claim for lump sum alimony,” citing Foxx v. Foxx, 357 So. 2d 754 (Fla.…
-
Ferriss v. Ferriss, 356 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…572 (Fla. 3 DCA 1973); Linares v. Linares, 292 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3 DCA 1974); Baker v. Baker, 299 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3 DCA 1974); Keller v. Keller, 302 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3 DCA 1974); Walton v. Walton, 290 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3 DCA 1974); Collazo v. Collazo, 318 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3 DCA 1975). AFFIRMED. [*897] McLANE, RALPH M., Associate Judge, concurs. BOYER, J., dissents.…
Authorities Cited
- Latta v. Parker A. Latta, 121 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- 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)
- Martin v. State, 304 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Lush v. State, 292 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)