Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

611 So. 2d 1268

Docket No. 91-2754.

Roth v. Roth

Patricia ROTH, Appellant, v. Harold ROTH, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 8, 1992.

Rehearings Denied February 23, 1993.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1992-12-08

Relies on 497 So. 2d 635 - Pastore v. Pastore · 583 So. 2d 667 - Kelly v. Kelly · Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-12-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 2011

5 state decisions

30199220002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Deborah Marks, North Miami, for appellant.

¶2James C. Blecke, Burt E. Redlus, Miami, for appellee.

¶3Before HUBBART, BASKIN and GODERICH, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Patricia 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.

¶6We 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.

¶7*1269 Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

NOTES

¶8[1] The property agreement provided, in pertinent part:

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

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

/611/so2d/1268 · .json · Public domain