Delehant v. Delehant
| Decision Date | 23 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 82-2161,82-2218,s. 82-2161 |
| Citation | 442 So. 2d 1009 |
| Parties | Dorothea Margaret DELEHANT, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. Lauren Moore DELEHANT, Appellee/Cross Appellant. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Karen O'Brien Steger of McManus, Stewart & Ferraro, P.A., Stuart, and Vincent A. Lloyd of Lloyd, Brown, Hoskins & Becht, Fort Pierce, for appellant/cross appellee.
Martha C. Warner, Stuart, for appellee/cross appellant.
This is an uncommonly difficult dissolution of marriage action.The record reflects, among other discords, alcoholism and attempted suicide.There were remarkable business failures and declines in assets.There were five previous actions filed followed by reconciliations.The instant action has been in litigation for over five years and has visited this court on two prior occasions.SeeDelehant v. Delehant, 383 So.2d 231(Fla. 4th DCA1980)andDelehant v. Delehant, 409 So.2d 213(Fla. 4th DCA1982).
The trial court labored diligently to adjust the equities and property rights of the parties.A comprehensive final judgment was entered.Both parties are aggrieved by it and have appealed.With two, relatively speaking, minor exceptions to be yet discussed, we approve the solution fashioned by the trial court as the best that could be reached under the law and facts of this case.
With reference to the wife, she says she should have received the husband's interest in the jointly owned marital home as lump sum alimony.We disagree and affirm.Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197(Fla.1980).
The judgment provided that the wife would have exclusive use of the marital home from August 24, 1982, to December 31, 1987, and that the wife shall be responsible for all charges on the former marital residence including but not limiting it to mortgage payments, insurance, taxes, repairs, and maintenance.The wife is aggrieved over having to pay all the charges and says that the trial court erred in not giving the wife credit for the husband's share of the real property expenses.We agree.In Whiteley v. Whiteley, 329 So.2d 352(Fla. 4th DCA1976), this court pointed out that where the marital domicile was jointly owned, the husband and wife become tenants in common upon dissolution of their marriage.More specifically it was there held at page 353,
where the final judgment of dissolution of marriage awards one co-tenant the exclusive possession of the marital domicile and directs that co-tenant to pay all or some of the obligations of the property such as taxes, liens and repairs, the right of the co-tenant in possession to reimbursement from the other co-tenant is postponed until such time as the property is partitioned or otherwise sold.However, upon partition or other sale the tenant paying those obligations of the property is entitled to credit from the proceeds of the sale for the other co-tenant's proportionate share of those expenses.
See alsoLyons v. Lyons, 208 So.2d 137(Fla. 3d DCA1968);Guthrie v. Guthrie, 315 So.2d 498(Fla. 4th DCA1975);andPrice v. Price, 389 So.2d 666(Fla. 3d DCA1980).While we hereafter reverse the award of exclusive possession to the wife, we hold that the wife, upon sale of the marital home, shall be entitled to reimbursement from the sales proceeds for the husband's proportionate share of the marital home expenses which the wife has already paid since the time she became a tenant in common pursuant to the final judgment.
With reference to the husband and his cross appeal, we find no error or abuse of discretion as to the award of periodic alimony and attorney fees to the wife.Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra.
The husband poses the question as to whether the trial court erred in awarding the wife five years continued exclusive possession of the marital home when there were no longer minor children or other justifying circumstances.We hold that it did and reverse this provision in the final judgment.
It appears that the marital home is the chief asset of the parties, it having an equity value of something over $100,000.00.The income of the parties is minimal.The children are adults, not statutorily dependents, and the parties are not legally responsible for their support.The wife is working and in good health.The trial court remarked in awarding the exclusive possession to the wife,
I want to make sure that she and the kids, one of whom is going to college, still can have a place to park while he's in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fischer v. Fischer
...Tinsley v. Tinsley, 490 So.2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Wertheimer v. Wertheimer, 487 So.2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Delehant v. Delehant, 442 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Monnar v. Monnar, 422 So.2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Kohn v. Kohn, 423 So.2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Price v. Price, 389......
-
Donsky-Levine v. Levine, DONSKY-LEVIN
...sale. Greenberg v. Greenberg, 602 So.2d 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Hoyt v. Hoyt, 457 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Delehant v. Delehant, 442 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Guthrie v. Guthrie, 315 So.2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA As to all of the foregoing errors, we reverse and remand with instructi......
-
Honeycutt v. Honeycutt, 95-1299
...Breland v. Breland, 565 So.2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Fischer v. Fischer, 503 So.2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); and Delehant v. Delehant, 442 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The underlying rationale appears to be that, even though one party is deprived of occupancy of the jointly-owned propert......
-
Cone v. Cone, 83-555
...stated. Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949 (Fla.1980); Ambrose v. Rayne, 412 So.2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). See also Delehant v. Delehant, 442 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). A joint owner of property paying expenses necessarily attendant to the ownership of property is ordinarily entitled to r......