Duarte v. Duarte

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Duarte v. Duarte

447 So. 2d 928, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12098

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 1984

DocketNo. 83-895

StatusPublished

This text of 447 So. 2d 928 (Duarte v. Duarte) 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

Duarte v. Duarte, 447 So. 2d 928, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12098 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant complains of one feature of a final judgment dissolving a marriage, to wit: that the appellee is not required to pay one-half of the cost of maintaining the home of the parties, possession of which was awarded to the wife, title to which is as tenants in common. Tolin v. Tolin, 401 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Leonard v. Leonard, 389 So.2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Section 689.15 Florida Statutes (1981). The wife also has the custody of the parties’ two minor children. The parties have a substantial equity in the house. It is apparent that the parties enjoyed a scale of living in excess of that permitted by the earnings of the husband due to funds received from outside sources, in all probability, their respective families. The wife refuses to join in sale of the home, which the parties cannot afford on the ap-pellee’s earnings.

We find error in the support award¹ and return the matter to the trial court with directions to order the appellee to make additional payments of support and if necessary, in order to give him assets from which to make said payments, direct the sale of the home. Reik v. Reik, 412 So.2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Scott v. Scott, 408 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Reversed and remanded with directions.²

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant complains of one feature of a final judgment dissolving a marriage, to wit: that the appellee is not required to pay one-half of the cost of maintaining the home of the parties, possession of which was awarded to the wife, title to which is as tenants in common. Tolin v. Tolin, 401 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Leonard v. Leonard, 389 So.2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Section 689.15 Florida Statutes (1981). The wife also has the custody of the parties’ two minor children. The parties have a substantial equity in the house. It is apparent that the parties enjoyed a scale of living in excess of that permitted by the earnings of the husband due to funds received from outside sources, in all probability, their respective families. The wife refuses to join in sale of the home, which the parties cannot afford on the ap-pellee’s earnings.

We find error in the support award¹ and return the matter to the trial court with directions to order the appellee to make additional payments of support and if necessary, in order to give him assets from which to make said payments, direct the sale of the home. Reik v. Reik, 412 So.2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Scott v. Scott, 408 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Reversed and remanded with directions.²

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

447 So. 2d 928, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duarte-v-duarte-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack