Goins v. Goins, 5D99-1886.
| Decision Date | 28 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D99-1886.,5D99-1886. |
| Citation | 762 So.2d 1049 |
| Parties | Brenda A. GOINS, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Michael S. GOINS, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sharon Lee Stedman, of Sharon Lee Stedman, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Nancy Y. Smith of Brinson, Smith & Smith, P.A., Kissimmee, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Brenda Goins appeals from a final judgment of dissolution and Michael Goins, the former husband, cross-appeals. We affirm.
This was obviously a bitter and difficult case. We think the trial judge resolved the parties' disputes in a fair and equitable manner, and made extensive and detailed findings which we decline to disturb. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). We find only two problems with his judgment, which we think can be resolved by interpreting it as indicated in this opinion.
The first problem is the part of the judgment which appears to require the former wife to pay $600.00 per month rent to the former husband for the time after the dissolution she and the minor children were living in the jointly-owned marital residence before it was sold. In addition, the judgment appears to require her to pay one-half of the mortgage payment, taxes, insurance and major maintenance, by giving the former husband a credit, plus 10% interest against the net proceeds, upon sale of the house. The former husband argues the basis for the court's imposition of rent is the fact that the former wife allowed her sister and her child to move into the residence, because the sister was having family problems, and the former wife needed assistance caring for her three children.
Unless there are extraordinary circumstances not present in this case, a tenant in common who has exclusive possession of real property and who uses it for her own benefit without receiving any rents or profits therefrom, is not liable or accountable to a co-tenant out of possession unless such possession is adverse to or as a result of ouster. Brisciano v. Byard, 615 So.2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 558 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Here, the judgment did not give the former wife exclusive possession. In such cases, the jointly owned property is deemed occupied on behalf of both owners, and the nonresident tenant is not entitled to rent, except as an offset against the resident tenant's claim for a contribution to property expenses. Thomas v. Thomas, 712 So.2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Although a court can require a spouse to pay one-half the rental value for the privilege of occupying a marital residence prior to sale, it need not do so, and unless it expressly does so, rental value cannot be later claimed against the proceeds of the sale. See Goolsby v. Wiley, 547 So.2d 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
However, in this case it is not clear the court required the former wife to pay both the rent and one-half the mortgage and other expenses. We think the language should be construed as requiring the former wife to pay $600.00 per month "rent" towards her portion of her owner's liability for the property. The judgment provides:
[T]herefore the wife may rent the Husband's half-interest by paying him $600.00 per month on the first commencing June 1, 1999. As tenants in common upon dissolution of the marriage each party owes 50% of the mortgage taxes, insurance, and major maintenance. However, the Court finds that the Wife cannot pay more than $600.00 rent and her liability for the difference is to be paid as described below. The Wife has to live somewhere, the children are in school there, and the house is better protected and maintained for sale with occupants. The Wife must eventually pay her share of the house debt service and she might as well get some benefit. This seems to the Court as a short term arrangement and is in the children's best interest too. (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Marinaro v. Redding, 5D99-1970.
-
Drewes v. Drewes, 5D00-913.
...what the court was doing. This money was not rent and we agree with the trial court's disposal of this issue. Cf. Goins v. Goins, 762 So.2d 1049, 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Lastly, the wife complains of the visitation schedule fashioned by the trial court, complaining that she should have be......
-
Schryver v. Franklin, 2D01-3004.
...offset against the resident owner's claim for a contribution to property expenses. Thomas, 712 So.2d at 823; see also Goins v. Goins, 762 So.2d 1049 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Here, the trial court did not find that Mr. Schryver's possession of the former marital residence was adverse to Mrs. Fra......
-
Hughes v. Krueger, 5D09–1371.
...or accountable to a co-tenant out of possession unless such possession is adverse to or as a result of ouster.” Goins v. Goins, 762 So.2d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Here, there was no ouster of the Former Wife from the Tiner Property and the original divorce judgment did not give her e......
-
Temporary relief
...with medical, dental, and educational providers. [§61.13(2)(c)3., Fla. Stat.] Case law further defines the statute. [ Goins v. Goins, 762 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (where both parents have shared parental responsibility, both are empowered to make joint decisions concerning care and u......
-
Parental responsibility
...with medical, dental, and education providers. [§61.13(2)(c)3, Fla. Stat.] Case law further defines the statute. [ Goins v. Goins, 762 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (where both parents have shared parental responsibility, both are thus empowered to make joint decisions concerning care and......
-
Final judgment; rehearing; motions related to judgment
...the right to in-person communication with medical, dental, and education providers. [§61.13(2)(c)3., Fla. Stat.; see Goins v. Goins, 762 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)(where parents have shared parental responsibility, both are thus empowered to make joint decisions concerning care and upb......