Hausler v. Hausler

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hausler v. Hausler

382 So. 2d 806, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15874

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 11, 1980

DocketNo. 79-683

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 382 So. 2d 806 (Hausler v. Hausler) 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

Hausler v. Hausler, 382 So. 2d 806, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15874 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm, thereby rejecting the appellant husband’s contention that the court erred either in granting rehabilitative alimony to the wife, or in awarding her the marital home upon its finding of her entitlement to both a special equity in the home and lump sum alimony. The awards made by the trial court are within the trial judge’s discretion to provide necessary support and to properly apportion assets of the parties. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). In view of the court having awarded custody and control of the minor daughter (born February 28,1964) to the husband, however, we direct it to amend the final judgment to grant the husband exclusive possession of the marital home until thirty days after the daughter reaches eighteen years of age. The trial court shall also grant the husband exclusive possession of the household items it finds necessary to use of the marital home until that date. Finally, the court shall provide that the husband is responsible for mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and upkeep of the marital home during his possession.

GRIMES, C. J., SCHEB, J., and RAW-LINS, ROBERT W., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm, thereby rejecting the appellant husband’s contention that the court erred either in granting rehabilitative alimony to the wife, or in awarding her the marital home upon its finding of her entitlement to both a special equity in the home and lump sum alimony. The awards made by the trial court are within the trial judge’s discretion to provide necessary support and to properly apportion assets of the parties. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). In view of the court having awarded custody and control of the minor daughter (born February 28,1964) to the husband, however, we direct it to amend the final judgment to grant the husband exclusive possession of the marital home until thirty days after the daughter reaches eighteen years of age. The trial court shall also grant the husband exclusive possession of the household items it finds necessary to use of the marital home until that date. Finally, the court shall provide that the husband is responsible for mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and upkeep of the marital home during his possession.

GRIMES, C. J., SCHEB, J., and RAW-LINS, ROBERT W., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

382 So. 2d 806, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hausler-v-hausler-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack