Roth v. Roth, 611 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Roth v. Roth, 611 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Cortese v. Cortese (fladistctapp, 2011-10-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" Cortese v. Cortese
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roth v. Roth, 611 So.2d 1268, 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“The husband is not entitled to a credit for the mortgage payments, when ... the payments constituted his support obligation.” (citing Pastore v. Pastore, 497 So.2d 635, 637 (Fla.1986); Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 558 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990))).
discussed Cited "see" Honeycutt v. Honeycutt
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roth v. Roth, 611 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 558 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). *1099 The wife also contends the trial court erred in entering the following provision: From the date of this Final Judgment until the date of any closing and sale of the real property, the Wife shall be responsible for all expenses relating to the use and ownership of said real property, including but not limited to mortgage payments (including principal and interest), taxes, insurance, homeowners association dues or fees, utilities, repairs and maintenance expenses.
Patricia ROTH, Appellant,
v.
Harold ROTH, Appellee.
91-2754.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec 8, 1992.
611 So. 2d 1268
Hubbart, Baskin and Goderich.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Deborah Marks, North Miami, for appellant.

James C. Blecke, Burt E. Redlus, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, BASKIN and GODERICH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Patricia Roth, former wife of Harold Roth, appeals a final judgment granting partition of the marital home in an action by Harold Roth for partition of the home and division of the sale proceeds. The trial court entered an order granting partition and awarding each party credits against the sale proceeds. On appeal, the wife argues that the trial court erred in awarding the husband certain credits. The husband has not appealed the judgment.

We affirm the judgment except for the credit awarded to the husband for mortgage payments [$14,534.28] and remitted property taxes [$2,795.83]. The husband is not entitled to a credit for the mortgage payments, when as here, the payments constituted his support obligation.[1]See Pastore v. Pastore, 497 So.2d 635, 637 (Fla. 1986) (where order to pay all home expenses constitutes a form of rehabilitative alimony, trial court did not err in failing to award payor credit upon sale of home); Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 558 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (where court orders party to pay mortgage as spousal support, paying party is not entitled to credit for those expenses). However, the husband is entitled to a credit for half of the property taxes he paid; the payment of property taxes was not a support requirement in the agreement and as tenants in common both parties bear equal responsibility for the payment. Kelly v. Kelly, 583 So.2d 667 (Fla. 1991). Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the order.

[*1269] Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

1 The property agreement provided, in pertinent part:

3. Husband shall make the mortgage payments [$95.00] on the above described home and will provide the maintenance and repairs of said home; and

4. Wife is to provide the balance of support including food clothes, etc., for herself and the [four] minor children of the parties hereto.