Mathews v. Mathews

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mathews v. Mathews

573 So. 2d 1017, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 759, 1991 WL 10428

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1809

StatusPublished

This text of 573 So. 2d 1017 (Mathews v. Mathews) 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

Mathews v. Mathews, 573 So. 2d 1017, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 759, 1991 WL 10428 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The former wife appeals from the trial court’s order setting forth the terms for the purchase of her equity in the marital home by the appellee former husband and modifying the visitation schedule by the appellee with the parties’ children. The appellant raises several points, but we find only two of the points to have merit. First, because the appellee’s motion did not request a setoff against the appellant’s equity for the appellant’s portion of the joint debts of the parties, and because the appellant properly objected at the hearing to any testimony relating to the appellee’s entitlement to a setoff for such debts, the trial court erred in awarding the setoff against the amount of the appellant’s equity in the marital home. The trial court also erred in failing to credit the wife with the amount by which she reduced the principal balance on the mortgage during the time she was making mortgage payments on the marital home. In all other respects, the order will be affirmed.

Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

JOANOS, WIGGINTON and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The former wife appeals from the trial court’s order setting forth the terms for the purchase of her equity in the marital home by the appellee former husband and modifying the visitation schedule by the appellee with the parties’ children. The appellant raises several points, but we find only two of the points to have merit. First, because the appellee’s motion did not request a setoff against the appellant’s equity for the appellant’s portion of the joint debts of the parties, and because the appellant properly objected at the hearing to any testimony relating to the appellee’s entitlement to a setoff for such debts, the trial court erred in awarding the setoff against the amount of the appellant’s equity in the marital home. The trial court also erred in failing to credit the wife with the amount by which she reduced the principal balance on the mortgage during the time she was making mortgage payments on the marital home. In all other respects, the order will be affirmed.

Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

JOANOS, WIGGINTON and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

573 So. 2d 1017, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 759, 1991 WL 10428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathews-v-mathews-fladistctapp-1991.