Rubino v. Rubino

Decision Date29 June 1979
Docket NumberNo. MM-47,MM-47
Citation372 So.2d 539
PartiesDonna Jean RUBINO, Appellant, v. Richard Gene RUBINO, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Elise F. Judelle, of Bryant, Miller & Olive, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Jerome M. Novey, of Novey & Blanton, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Mrs. Rubino contends that the trial court erred by failing to require her husband to pay one-half of the ownership expenses on the jointly owned home during the use and occupancy by the wife and children; by awarding rehabilitative alimony rather than permanent alimony, or in not reserving jurisdiction to consider a later award of alimony; and by denying the wife the husband's interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony.The wife's first point has merit; the other points are affirmed.Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13(Fla.1976);Robinson v. Robinson, 366 So.2d 1210(Fla. 1st DCA1979).

The trial court's order is, in pertinent part, as follows:

"The parties shall own the marital residence at 2521 Harriman Circle, Tallahassee Florida, as tenants in common, however, the wife shall so long as she remains unmarried have the right to reside in and have possession and use of the house and lot until such time as all of the minor children of the parties has reached the age of eighteen (18) years, married or become self-supporting, died, or further order of this court, if she will pay the mortgage, reasonable maintenance, insurance and tax payments pertaining to the house for the time she resides there.After such time or if she chooses to move out earlier, the parties as tenants in common shall become equally responsible for the mortgage, reasonable maintenance, insurance and tax payments, and shall...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Smith v. Smith
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 20, 1979
    ...233 So.2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); and Spencer v. Spencer, 160 Fla. 749, 36 So.2d 424 (1948). (e.s.) Accord, e. g., Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So.2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Singer v. Singer, supra. Hence, on remand, the husband shall be required to pay one-half of the mortgage payments, insuranc......
  • Mahaffey v. Mahaffey
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 12, 1981
    ...maintenance and upkeep on the home is also a standard provision, perhaps required by the law of joint tenancy. Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So.2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). See Power v. Power, 387 So.2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The inclusion of unlimited sums for "maintenance" and "upkeep" goes furt......
  • Fischer v. Fischer
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 24, 1987
    ...equity in the jointly owned home without reimbursement. See Tinsley, 490 So.2d at 207; Kohn, 423 So.2d at 575; Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So.2d 539, 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Accordingly, we reverse in part the final judgment and direct that it be amended to provide that, upon the sale of the mar......
  • Green v. Green
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 26, 2009
    ...for payment of the other party's share when the house is sold. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 477 So.2d 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So.2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Strollo v. Strollo, 365 So.2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). An exception to this general rule is where mortgage payments are ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT