KENNETH CHARLES SIDMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
RAGHILD SIDONIA KRIEHUBER SIDMAN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed the husband's three points on appeal but reversed the trial court's denial of exclusive use and possession of the marital home to the wife until the children reach majority or she remarries.
A wife is entitled to exclusive use and possession of the marital home until the children reach majority or she remarries, and the trial court must modify its judgment accordingly.
[1] In a divorce proceeding, a wife is entitled to exclusive use and possession of the marital home until the children reach majority or she remarries.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a divorce proceeding, the trial court failed to award the wife exclusive use and possession of the marital home until the children reached majority…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exclusive Use and Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We find no merit in the three points raised by the appellant/husband in his appeal and therefore affirm them. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). As to the wife’s cross appeal, we agree with the point raised and reverse. Appellee/wife contends that the trial court erred in failing to award the exclusive use and possession of the marital home to her until the children reach majority. Because both parties agree that the trial court’s final judgment should have awarded exclusive use and possession of the marital home to the wife until the children reach their majority, or the wife remarries, we reverse and remand the cause to the trial court with directions that the final judgment be modified by the entry of such award. In view of our remand in this regard, the lower court may, in its discretion, wish to revisit that portion of the final judgment directing both parties to be responsible for one-half the payments of the mortgage, taxes and insurance applicable to the marital home, and determine from its review of all the financial resources of both parties, whether the wife alone should be so responsible.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further consistent proceedings.
ERVIN, LARRY G. SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.