Karen Haxel v. Douglas Haxel
This text of Karen Haxel v. Douglas Haxel (Karen Haxel v. Douglas Haxel) 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.
Opinion
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
Case No. 5D2024-0846 LT Case No. 2010-DR-014130 _____________________________
KAREN HAXEL,
Appellant,
v.
DOUGLAS HAXEL,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Michelle Pruitt Studstill, Judge.
Alex Finch, of Finch Legal, PLLC, Longwood, for Appellant.
Curtis N. Flajole, of Curtis N. Flajole, P.A., Rockledge, for Appellee.
January 16, 2026
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the dissolution judgment in all respects except one. Husband received a $13,980.33 credit for payments that he made on the marital home after the parties’ final separation. But a court should not credit a spouse for making post-separation house payments when that spouse was the primary income earner generally responsible for paying the mortgage and other household expenses during the marriage. See Cortese v. Cortese, 72 So. 3d 269, 269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); see, e.g., Kranz v. Kranz, 737 So. 2d 1198, 1202 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (concluding that a husband was not entitled to credit for paying the mortgage on the marital home after the parties separated “just as he had during the marriage”). Here, because Husband paid the mortgage without Wife’s financial assistance during the marriage, the court should not have credited him for continuing those payments after Wife moved out of the house. Therefore, we reverse that aspect of the dissolution judgment and remand for the court to enter an amended judgment. The amended judgment shall remove Husband’s house payment credit and make the corresponding adjustment to the equitable distribution of the marital home.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with instructions.
JAY, C.J., and WALLIS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Karen Haxel v. Douglas Haxel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karen-haxel-v-douglas-haxel-fladistctapp-2026.