Fraser v. Fraser

9 Citing cases

  1. Jones v. Jones

    527 So. 2d 244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 3 times

    We hold that it was error to award the marital home to the wife where, as here, the award was not necessary for the maintenance of the wife, for the rearing of the couple's children, or for any other compelling reason because the effect was not to equitably distribute assets but to deprive the husband of the benefit of the proceeds of this marriage's primary asset: the marital home. See Lynch v. Lynch, 437 So.2d 234, 237 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Lyons v. Lyons, 436 So.2d 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Fraser v. Fraser, 368 So.2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Moreover, experience, as well as common sense, indicates that a home as commodious and expensive as the one at issue may well require substantial maintenance and repair costs which a person who has no independent means of livelihood would find difficult to meet.

  2. Cabrera v. Cabrera

    484 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 16 times
    In Cabrera, supra, the wife was granted primary custody of the parties' two-year-old child and was ordered to vacate the marital residence along with the child.

    For these reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for the entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion and for an equitable determination as to which party shall bear the reasonable and necessary expenses associated with the use and upkeep of the marital home. Judge v. Judge, 370 So.2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Fraser v. Fraser, 368 So.2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  3. Creel v. Creel

    378 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 12 times

    In my view, the record does not justify the award as lump sum alimony of the husband's interest in the marital home, which was the primary asset of the parties. See Meridith v. Meridith, 366 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1978); Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1976); Griffith v. Griffith, 376 So.2d 418 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Fraser v. Fraser, 368 So.2d 97 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). I would therefore reverse that provision of the final judgment and remand the cause for consideration of granting the wife the exclusive possession of the home for the period of her residence there with the minor children. McRae v. McRae, 52 So.2d 908 (Fla. 1951); Hoskin v. Hoskin, 329 So.2d 19 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).

  4. Thomas v. Thomas

    377 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 3 times

    There is no positive showing in this record of necessity on the part of wife and ability of the husband to pay, necessary to sustain the award of lump sum alimony appealed herein. Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1976); Meredith v. Meredith, 366 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1978); Fraser v. Fraser, 368 So.2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Martin v. Martin, 366 So.2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), opinion filed October 11, 1979; Griffith v. Griffith, 376 So.2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Accordingly, that portion of the final judgment awarding the wife the husband's one-half interest in the marital home is reversed.

  5. Griffith v. Griffith

    376 So. 2d 418 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 3 times

    We reverse the award of lump sum alimony as not justified under the evidence in this record. Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1976); Meredith v. Meredith, 366 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1978); Fraser v. Fraser, 368 So.2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). We affirm the denial of the husband's claim of special equity to the wife's one-half interest in the apartment complex; his evidence failed to warrant such an award.

  6. Cornelius v. Cornelius

    382 So. 2d 710 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 3 times

    352 So.2d 72, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Recent decisions, both from this district, e.g., Robinson v. Robinson, 366 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), and others, Fraser v. Fraser, 368 So.2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Judge v. Judge, 370 So.2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Saldana v. Saldana, 372 So.2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), have followed the equation and disregarded Brown's marital contribution rule. Since the Yandell standards remain intact it is necessary that we recede from language in Brown which suggests a lump sum award may be made without a showing either of the need of the spouse or the ability of the other spouse to supply that need.

  7. Martin v. Martin

    376 So. 2d 400 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 3 times

    The court may take further testimony in this regard if it deems it appropriate. Winner v. Winner, 370 So.2d 845 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Fraser v. Fraser, 368 So.2d 97 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). Reversed in part and remanded. ERVIN, Acting C.J., and BOOTH, J., concur.

  8. Adams v. Adams

    371 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

    Affirmed. Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla. 1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16-17 (Fla. 1976); Caidin v. Caidin, 367 So.2d 248 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Koeppel v. Koeppel, 351 So.2d 766 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So.2d 371, 375, 378 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Cann v. Cann, 334 So.2d 325, 328 (Fla.1st DCA 1976); Linares v. Linares, 292 So.2d 63 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). See and compare; Meridith v. Meridith, 366 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1978); Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1976); Fraser v. Fraser, 368 So.2d 97 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).

  9. Judge v. Judge

    370 So. 2d 833 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 9 times

    Keeping in mind the other portions of the judgment, the court should make such provisions for the payment of the mortgage, insurance, taxes and related expenses as may be equitable. See Fraser v. Fraser, 368 So.2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The order directing the sale of the beach house suffers from the same defects as the one in Carlsen v. Carlsen, 346 So.2d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).