Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
The sale of a marital residence after divorce may stir up disputes between former spouses as to the sale proceeds if not properly addressed in a final judgment or marital settlement agreement. For example, when a spouse feels he or she should receive credit for certain expenses paid on the home after the divorce, but prior to the sale, this may cause dispute between the parties. This was an issue in the case Lantz v. Gibson, 1D2024-2148 (Fla. 1st DCA December 3, 2025).
The parties drafted their own marital settlement agreement without the involvement of lawyers, and the trial court entered a final judgment of divorce adopting their agreement. The agreement stated in pertinent part that the former wife would receive 60% of the equity in the marital residence while the former husband would receive 40%. The agreement also stated the former wife would be solely responsible for the mortgage. For 17 years after the entry of the final judgment, the former wife rented the residence out and paid all expenses on it. She did not share any of the rental income with the former husband. When the former wife went to sell the residence and realized the former husband would receive 40% of the proceeds, she halted the sale. The parties ended up in litigation over the split of the sale proceeds. The trial court declined to reimburse the former wife for the home-related expenses because the MSA did not provide for such expenses, and the trial court was “not inclined to create terms of a contract that the parties never anticipated and certainly never agreed upon.” The former wife appealed.
The appellate court reasoned that upon the parties’ divorce, the parties became tenants in common, and as such “[T]he parties are equally obligated to contribute to all costs necessary to maintain their ownership of the property.” The court held “Further, when an agreement is silent regarding liability for expenses, and no evidence shows that the non-paying tenant furnished consideration to be relieved of the obligation to contribute, the paying tenant, upon partition, is entitled to ‘credit from the proceeds of the sale for the other co-tenant’s proportionate share of [] expenses[]” like “taxes, liens, and repairs[.]’ [internal citations omitted].”
The court concluded “The MSA stated that [the former wife] was responsible for the ‘mortgage on real estate (Home)’ and could not ask [the former husband] to pay it; therefore, [the former husband] was relieved of his duty to contribute to the mortgage and mortgage-related expenses. However, the MSA was silent as to the Home’s other expenses. So, just as any other tenant in common, [the former husband] is responsible for his portion of the Home’s expenses, excluding the mortgage and mortgage-related expenses. [internal citations omitted]. For these reasons, we reverse the trial court’s decision to deny [the former wife] reimbursement for expenses related to the Home and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Nothing in this article is legal advice. Schedule your consultation with a Miami family law attorney for legal advice specific to your case.