VUREST BARBARA SULLIVAN, APPELLANT,
v.
EARL R. SULLIVAN, 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 court held that the trial court's order awarding rental value credits was improper without a finding of ouster.
Following dissolution of marriage, the trial court awarded one spouse credit for one-half the rental value of the marital residence. The appellate cou…
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.
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order awarding credits, rents, attorney fees, and costs following dissolution of marriage. The only issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in awarding to Mr. Sullivan one-half the rental value of the marital residence from the date of entry of the order of dissolution of marriage.
In Bailey v. Parker, 492 So. 2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), this court held that:
[WJhere a cotenant has exclusive possession of property owned as tenants in common, and uses the property for his own behalf and does not receive rents or profits therefrom, the tenant in possession is not accountable to the tenant out of possession unless the tenant in possession holds the property adversely or as the result of ouster or its equivalent. Coggan v. Coggan, 239 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1970). In order to prove ouster, a tenant in common must show acts by the tenant in possession inconsistent with, and exclusive of, the rights of the cotenant and knowledge by the cotenant of the tenant in possession’s acts, [emphasis in original]
An award of rents would be proper if there was an active or constructive ouster of Mr. Sullivan from the premises. From our review of the record, we are unable to determine whether the trial court found ouster. Accordingly, we remand for appropriate findings in light of Bailey.
BOOTH, WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spaulding v. Albertson's, Inc., 610 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ssue of when interest begins to run on an award of attorney’s fees, we find that the rule is well-established that interest on an award of appellate attorney’s fees is payable as of the date the award is made by the JCC. Mirlisena v. Chemlawn Corp., 597 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Stone v. Jeffres, 208 So. 2d 827 (Fla.1968); Okaloosa County Gas District v. Mandel, 394 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and St. Regis Paper Co. v. Pellizzeri, 394 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Notwithstanding the fo…
-
Thompson v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. & Alexsis Risk Mgmt. Serv., 618 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…nd decrees” are to bear interest at the statutory rate. 208 So. 2d at 829. The court further observed that any other rule would encourage the payor to delay payment of fees. 208 So. 2d at 830. DHRS relies principally on Mirlisena v. Chemlawn Corp., 597 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), in which the claimant had moved the judge of compensation claims for interest on an award of attorney’s fees after the judge’s award had become final.3 The judge denied the award and the claim [*335] ant appealed. The First Dist…
-
Hernandez v. Vill. OF Kings Creek Condo, 625 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. See Mirlisena v. Chemlawn Corp., 597 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Okaloosa County Gas Dist. v. Mandel, 394 So. 2d 453 [*137] (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); St. Regis Paper Co. v. Pellizzeri, 394 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). AFFIRMED. ERVIN and LAWRENCE, JJ., and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Coggan v. Coggan, 239 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1970)
- Bailey v. Parker, 492 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)