Horton v. Horton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Horton v. Horton

480 So. 2d 258, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 111, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 5799

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 3, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1208

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 480 So. 2d 258 (Horton v. Horton) 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

Horton v. Horton, 480 So. 2d 258, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 111, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 5799 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

In this dissolution of marriage case, the husband appeals the portions of the final judgment which awarded permanent alimony to the wife and did not award the husband a special equity in the marital home.

We affirm as to the alimony issue: See Walter v. Walter, 464 So.2d 538 (Fla.1985); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

We reverse as to the special equity issue. The husband owned a home prior to this marriage. There was uncontroverted evidence that the husband contributed to the purchase of the marital home for this marriage out of either funds which were borrowed through the use of his prior home as collateral after which that prior home was sold for a price which reflected the existence of the mortgage or funds from the sale of that prior home. Upon remand the trial court should ascertain and award to the husband the amount to which he is entitled as a special equity. See Landay v. Landay, 429 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1983). The trial court may choose to take additional evidence on this issue.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.

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

LEHAN, Judge.

In this dissolution of marriage case, the husband appeals the portions of the final judgment which awarded permanent alimony to the wife and did not award the husband a special equity in the marital home.

We affirm as to the alimony issue: See Walter v. Walter, 464 So.2d 538 (Fla.1985); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

We reverse as to the special equity issue. The husband owned a home prior to this marriage. There was uncontroverted evidence that the husband contributed to the purchase of the marital home for this marriage out of either funds which were borrowed through the use of his prior home as collateral after which that prior home was sold for a price which reflected the existence of the mortgage or funds from the sale of that prior home. Upon remand the trial court should ascertain and award to the husband the amount to which he is entitled as a special equity. See Landay v. Landay, 429 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1983). The trial court may choose to take additional evidence on this issue.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

480 So. 2d 258, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 111, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 5799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-horton-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack