Granthum v. Granthum

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 6, 1979

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1979-09-06

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1981

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(8) However, the trial court did err in not providing for the husband to receive credit for the wife’s share of the mortgage payment, taxes and insurance on the marital home which he is required to pay. Strollo vs. Strollo, 365 So.2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), Rubino vs. Rubino, 372 So.2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). That portion of the trial court’s Judgment is reversed and remanded for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Purger v. Purger

Relies on Rubino v. Rubino · Poston Bridge & Iron Co. v. Central Steel Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1979-09-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Upon consideration of the briefs, record and/or argument in this cause we affirm in part and reverse in part. The appellant did not demonstrate error with regard to the trial court’s denial of his claim for a special equity in the marital home. We affirm that portion of the trial court’s order.

¶2However, the trial court did err in not providing for the husband to receive credit for the wife’s share of the mortgage payment, taxes and insurance on the marital home which he is required to pay. Strollo v. Strollo, 365 So.2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So.2d 539 (1st DCA 1979). That portion of the trial court’s judgment is reversed and remanded *1105for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and BOOTH and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.