Bode v. Bode

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bode v. Bode

576 So. 2d 1382, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3057, 1991 WL 50084

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 10, 1991

DocketNo. 89-1857

StatusPublished

This text of 576 So. 2d 1382 (Bode v. Bode) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bode v. Bode, 576 So. 2d 1382, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3057, 1991 WL 50084 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm this cause upon the authority of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), but would stress that we do not, and the trial judge did not, pass upon what is to become of the former marital residence.

In the final judgment, the parties were decreed to be tenants in common in the marital home, but there was no direction as to who was to have possession and how the proceeds would be split, if and when the property is sold. Since the husband is only required to make the mortgage payments up through the date of the final judgment, we must assume the wife is responsible for them thereafter, especially since both parties appear to concede in their briefs that the wife, in fact, continues in possession.

Likewise, there is neither direction as to who is to pay the taxes and insurance, nor any indication as to how the net proceeds of any sale are to be distributed.

All this being so, while we affirm all other points on appeal, we remand for consideration of the fate of the marital home without prejudice to either party to again appeal any conclusion reached upon that particular aspect.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm this cause upon the authority of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), but would stress that we do not, and the trial judge did not, pass upon what is to become of the former marital residence.

In the final judgment, the parties were decreed to be tenants in common in the marital home, but there was no direction as to who was to have possession and how the proceeds would be split, if and when the property is sold. Since the husband is only required to make the mortgage payments up through the date of the final judgment, we must assume the wife is responsible for them thereafter, especially since both parties appear to concede in their briefs that the wife, in fact, continues in possession.

Likewise, there is neither direction as to who is to pay the taxes and insurance, nor any indication as to how the net proceeds of any sale are to be distributed.

All this being so, while we affirm all other points on appeal, we remand for consideration of the fate of the marital home without prejudice to either party to again appeal any conclusion reached upon that particular aspect.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 So. 2d 1382, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3057, 1991 WL 50084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bode-v-bode-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack