Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog
Property disputes between former spouses often surface years after a divorce, especially when jointly owned real estate remains unsold and one party shoulders the financial burden alone. A recent decision from a Florida court highlights how courts address reimbursement claims in partition actions when a marital settlement agreement addresses some expenses but remains silent on others. The ruling clarifies the continuing obligations of tenants in common and reinforces the long-standing principles of Florida property law. If you are facing a dispute over jointly owned property after divorce, speaking with a Miami real estate litigation attorney can help you understand your rights and avoid costly missteps as your case develops.
Facts and Procedural History
Allegedly, the plaintiff and defendant purchased a residence during their marriage, taking title subject to a mortgage. Following the dissolution of their marriage, the final judgment incorporated a marital settlement agreement drafted by the parties without counsel. The agreement stated that any gains from the eventual sale of the property would be divided, with the plaintiff receiving a larger percentage. The agreement also required the plaintiff to pay the mortgage and prohibited her from asking the defendant to contribute toward it.
It is alleged that after the divorce, the plaintiff attempted to sell the property but abandoned the effort due to unfavorable market conditions, leaving the mortgage balance exceeding the home’s value. Instead, the plaintiff retained possession and rented the property to third parties at various times over many years. During that period, the plaintiff paid all expenses associated with the property, including taxes, insurance, and maintenance, while the defendant made no financial contributions and received no rental income.
Reportedly, many years later, the parties entered into a contract to sell the home. When the plaintiff realized that the defendant would receive his contractual share of the sale proceeds despite having paid none of the expenses, she refused to close. The plaintiff then filed an action seeking partition by sale and an accounting, requesting reimbursement for the expenses she had paid over the years. The trial court granted partition by sale but denied reimbursement, reasoning that the marital settlement agreement did not require the defendant to share in the expenses and that the court would not rewrite the parties’ contract.
It is reported that the plaintiff moved for rehearing, which the trial court denied. She then appealed, challenging the denial of reimbursement and arguing that principles governing tenancies in common entitled her to contribution from the defendant for expenses not expressly addressed in the agreement.
Post-Divorce Property Division
On appeal, the court reviewed the final judgment and the interpretation of the marital settlement agreement de novo, while also considering established doctrines of Florida real property law. The court emphasized that upon dissolution of marriage, property previously held as an estate by the entirety converts by operation of law into a tenancy in common. As tenants in common, former spouses generally share equal responsibility for costs necessary to preserve and maintain the property.
The court explained that while a marital settlement agreement may alter default property law obligations, silence on a particular issue does not automatically eliminate those obligations. Florida precedent holds that when one co tenant pays more than a proportional share of necessary expenses, that party is entitled to reimbursement upon partition unless the record establishes a clear basis to relieve the nonpaying co tenant of responsibility.
Applying these principles, the court carefully examined the language of the agreement. It concluded that the agreement expressly relieved the defendant of any duty to contribute to the mortgage and related expenses. However, the agreement did not address other ownership costs such as taxes, insurance, and maintenance. Because the agreement was silent and there was no evidence that the defendant provided consideration to avoid those obligations, the court determined that the trial court erred in denying reimbursement outright.
The court reversed the portion of the judgment denying reimbursement and remanded for further proceedings. It instructed the trial court to determine the appropriate allocation of non mortgage expenses consistent with tenancy in common principles. The court declined to express an opinion on whether the plaintiff would ultimately recover funds after accounting for rental income and other equitable considerations, leaving that analysis to the trial court on remand.
Discuss Your Case a Trusted Miami Divorce Attorney
Whether you are seeking reimbursement for property expenses, defending against a partition claim, or navigating post-divorce property rights, it is in your best interest to talk to an attorney. The trusted Miami divorce attorneys at the Law Offices of Sandy T. Fox, P.A., regularly assist clients throughout South Florida with partition actions and property disputes arising from family law matters. To set up a confidential consultation, call us at 800-596-0579 or contact the firm online.