Erick v. Erick

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Erick v. Erick

423 So. 2d 602, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22019

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 21, 1982

DocketNo. 82-1174

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 423 So. 2d 602 (Erick v. Erick) 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

Erick v. Erick, 423 So. 2d 602, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22019 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

We modify the final judgment insofar as it requires the wife to pay three-quarters of the mortgage obligation without receiving reimbursement until sale of the marital home. The wife, who has exclusive possession of the house owned by the parties as tenants in common while the children are minors, is in no better position to carry the obligation than is the husband, despite the promise of reimbursement in the future. Although the trial court recognized that payment from the husband might increase if his earnings were to increase substantially, we find that the court’s failure to require the husband to pay half the mortgage, insurance, taxes, and necessary repairs as they became due constituted an abuse of discretion and permitted the husband to build his equity without full regard to the burden on the wife. Waskin v. Waskin, 346 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Singer v. Singer, 342 So.2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Accordingly, we modify the final judgment to require the husband to pay half the mortgage, insurance, taxes, and necessary repairs.

Affirmed as modified.

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

BASKIN, Judge.

We modify the final judgment insofar as it requires the wife to pay three-quarters of the mortgage obligation without receiving reimbursement until sale of the marital home. The wife, who has exclusive possession of the house owned by the parties as tenants in common while the children are minors, is in no better position to carry the obligation than is the husband, despite the promise of reimbursement in the future. Although the trial court recognized that payment from the husband might increase if his earnings were to increase substantially, we find that the court’s failure to require the husband to pay half the mortgage, insurance, taxes, and necessary repairs as they became due constituted an abuse of discretion and permitted the husband to build his equity without full regard to the burden on the wife. Waskin v. Waskin, 346 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Singer v. Singer, 342 So.2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Accordingly, we modify the final judgment to require the husband to pay half the mortgage, insurance, taxes, and necessary repairs.

Affirmed as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 So. 2d 602, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erick-v-erick-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack