Hernandez v. Hernandez
645 So.2d 171, 1994 WL 656200 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a property settlement agreement grants one co-tenant exclusive possession of the marital home and requires them to pay property expenses but is silent on reimbursement, the paying co-tenant is entitled to a credit for the other co-tenant's proportionate share of those expenses upon the property's partition sale. This right of reimbursement for shared obligations is established by operation of law unless the agreement explicitly allocates ultimate liability otherwise.
Facts:
- In 1979, Miriam Hernandez and Walfrido Hernandez divorced.
- Their property settlement agreement was incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution.
- The agreement granted Miriam Hernandez and the children the right to live in the marital residence.
- The agreement made Miriam Hernandez responsible for all payments on the first mortgage, utilities, and repairs.
- The agreement stipulated that if the home were sold, the parties would share the proceeds equally after costs.
- The agreement was silent as to whether Miriam Hernandez would receive credit for her payments upon a future sale.
- Following the divorce, Miriam Hernandez made all payments on the first mortgage and also paid for various repairs and improvements to the property.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1992, the parties sought partition of the former marital home in a Florida trial court.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a post-dissolution order of partition.
- The trial court's order denied Miriam Hernandez credit for the first mortgage payments and for repairs she made to the property.
- The trial court's order allowed Miriam Hernandez credit for improvements based on their appraised value, not their cost.
- The trial court granted Walfrido Hernandez an offset for one-half of the home's fair rental value during the period of Miriam Hernandez's exclusive occupancy.
- Miriam Hernandez (Appellant) appealed the trial court's partition order to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a former spouse who has exclusive possession of the marital home pursuant to a property settlement agreement have a right to receive credit for payments she made on the mortgage, for repairs, and for improvements upon the home's partition sale, when the agreement is silent on the issue of credits?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Cope
Yes. A former spouse who pays for shared property obligations pursuant to a settlement agreement that is silent on reimbursement is entitled to credit upon partition sale. After a divorce, parties become tenants in common, and under the law of cotenancy, all owners must contribute equally to the maintenance of the property. The court found that a settlement agreement requiring one party to be 'responsible for' payments only imposes the obligation to initially make the payments, not the ultimate liability. Citing the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Kelly v. Kelly, this court held that unless an agreement explicitly states otherwise, a right of reimbursement is established by operation of law for the paying co-tenant. Therefore, Miriam Hernandez is entitled to credit for one-half of the first mortgage payments and one-half of the necessary and reasonable repairs she paid. For improvements, she is entitled to credit for the amount the improvements enhanced the property's value, not their cost. Finally, because her exclusive possession was sanctioned by the agreement, Walfrido Hernandez is not entitled to an offset for the fair rental value of the property.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of general cotenancy law to post-dissolution property arrangements in Florida, explicitly overruling prior district precedent (Janer v. Janer). It establishes that a property settlement agreement's silence on the issue of credits does not waive the paying spouse's right to reimbursement for the other's share of property-preserving expenses. The case provides a clear framework for trial courts, distinguishing the measure of credit for necessary expenses (cost) from improvements (enhanced value), and clarifies that a rental value offset is improper when exclusive possession is granted by agreement or court order. This creates a default rule favoring reimbursement, requiring parties who wish to waive this right to do so explicitly in their settlement agreements.
