CARMEN BENCOMO, APPELLANT,
v.
WILL C. BENCOMO, 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.
Carmen Bencomo appealed a divorce decree in which the trial court awarded her one-half ownership of La Gorce Apartments as an estate by the entireties, ordered an accounting of the apartments' operation from the date the divorce suit was filed, and required both parties to pay equal shares of her attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the ownership and accounting provisions but reversed the requirement that the wife pay her own attorney's fees.
The court affirmed that the parties owned the apartments as an estate by the entireties, affirmed the accounting order from the date the complaint was filed, and affirmed that the husband must pay one-half of the wife's attorney's fees. However, the court reversed the requirement that the wife pay her own attorney's fees, holding that the trial court lacked power to impose such an obligation on the wife.
“Because of the nature of an estate by the entireties, courts have held that an accounting can not be required between the spouses, at least in the absence of unusual circumstances.”
Establishes the general rule that accountings are not required in estates by the entireties absent unusual circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties married on November 16, 1960. The husband acquired La Gorce Apartments in his own name in 1957, and the wife's name was added to the deed …
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 Estate By The Entireties cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce granted to plaintiff, Carmen Bencomo, in which she was declared to be a one-half owner of the La Gorce Apartments. The La Gorce .Apartments were found to be owned by the husband and wife as an estate by the entireties and they were ordered to make an accounting each to the other of their operation of the apart*875ments from the date of the filing of the suit to the date of the final decree. An attorney’s fee of $6,600.00 was fixed by the court as a reasonable fee for plaintiff’s attorney, and the plaintiff and defendant were ordered to pay equal sums of $3,300.00 each.
The parties were married on November 16, 1960. The defendant, husband, had acquired the apartments in his own name in 1957. The wife’s name was placed on the deed to the La Gorce Apartments on August 29, 1963. The complaint for divorce was filed on February 16, 1965.
The wife contends on appeal that the chancellor erred in requiring her to pay attorney’s fees and in ordering an accounting from the date of the filing of the action rather than from the date of the commencement of the estate by the entireties.
On cross-appeal the husband contends that the chancellor erred in finding that the wife owned a one-half interest in the apartments and in requiring him to pay any part of the fees due to the wife’s attorney.
The evidence supports the chancellor’s findings that the parties owned the La Gorce Apartments as an estate by the entireties.
Because of the nature of an estate by the entireties, courts have held that an accounting can not be required between the spouses,1 at least in the absence of unusual circumstances.2 At common law the husband had the absolute and exclusive right to the control, use, rents and profits of the property so held, however, Florida has receded from this view and equitable relief may be granted a co-tenant by the entireties in cases of conflicting interests.3
The husband, by motion filed May 26, 1965, sought an accounting alleging that for the past four months the wife had denied him access to various records and bank statements of the apartment’s operation and had refused to account to him or furnish him with any data concerning the operation. The wife does not argue that an accounting should not be required, but submits that it should be required for the entire period of joint ownership rather than from the date of filing of the complaint.
The wife gives no reason why the accounting should have been required from the date of the commencement of the estate by the entireties other than that is when her interest arose.
The wife has failed to demonstrate that the chancellor’s order requiring an accounting was in error and it will not be disturbed on appeal.
The court in this divorce action had no power to enter an order requiring the wife to pay her attorney a fee.4 However, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in requiring the husband to pay one-half of the wife’s attorney fees even though she was financially able to pay them herself.5
Therefore, the decree appealed is affirmed except as to that part requiring the wife to pay her attorney a fee which is reversed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…imony issue control the issue on attorneys fees. There is a demonstrated need for financial assistance for the husband to hire competent counsel which is not precluded by his possession of non-liquid, non-income producing assets. Bencomo v. Bencomo, 195 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 179 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Arrington v. Arrington, 150 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Turney v. Turney, 149 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). The wife unquestionably has the financial ability to pay fo…
-
Romano v. Olshen, 153 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…account for necessary guardianship expenses, even if the spouse of the ward does not agree. In the absence of legislative action, in the appropriate case, a court might well use equitable principles to achieve a just result. See Bencomo v. Bencomo, 195 So. 2d 874, 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) (“[EJquitable relief may be granted [to] a co-tenant by the entireties in cases of conflicting interests.” (footnote omitted)); Lacker v. Zuern, 109 So. 2d 180, 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959) (recognizing the possibility of “granting…
-
Eichman v. Paton, 393 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…hat equity has it within its power to grant relief (see Lacker v. Zuern, 109 So. 2d 180). [Fla. 2nd DCA 1959] We agree with the conclusions reached by the trial judge. See also Ashwood v. Patterson, 49 So. 2d 848 (Fla.1951), and Bencomo v. Bencomo, 195 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1967). We have considered appellant’s assertion that the courts of this state have consistently held that an estate by the entireties is not ordinarily subject to partition during the continued existence of the marital relationship of…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Turney v. Turney, 149 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Deauville Realty Co., Inc. v. Cannon, 114 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Luise Cristiani v. Daviso Cristiani, 114 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Lacker v. Zuern, 109 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)