Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
Are parties entitled to credits for mortgage payments on a marital home during separation? Florida Statutes do provide a way to claim credits in certain circumstances. This was an issue in the case Frazier v. Dodd, 5D2022-2478 (Fla. 5th DCA March 21, 2025).
The former husband filed for divorce in 2019, and a trial was held in 2022. While the case was pending, the former husband was ordered to make mortgage payments on the marital home which he did for some time but then stopped prior to trial. During the period between filing and trial, the former wife contributed about $5,850 toward maintenance of the home. Because the former husband stopped paying the mortgage, by the time of trial, there was an additional balance on the mortgage.
The trial court used the date of filing for valuing the marital home, noting the former wife alone bore the cost of continued ownership of the home. The former wife was awarded the home, resulting in an equalizing payment being owed to the former husband. The former wife was also awarded alimony. The former husband appealed as to both issues.
The appellate court considered the husband’s argument that the trial court “abused its discretion when it granted Wife the benefit of the $137,000 increase in the value of the marital home by selecting the date of separation rather than the date of trial as the valuation date.” The appellate court agreed with him, holding “Husband paid the mortgage on the marital home for nearly two years following the date of separation. Husband’s expenditures toward the maintenance and continued ownership of the home—even discounting the arrearage balance that accrued after he stopped making mortgage payments—exceeded Wife’s expenditures. Because the increase in the value or continued ownership of the property was not solely due to Wife’s efforts, the trial court abused its discretion in valuing the marital home as of the date of separation.”
The former husband further argued it was error for the trial court to fail to grant him credit for the mortgage payments he made during the first two years of the litigation. The former Wife countered that the Husband’s failure to pay the mortgage as ordered justified the lack of mortgage-payment credits. The appellate court agreed with the former husband, holding “It is possible that the trial court could decide that Husband’s actions require the forfeiture of credit for his payments, especially when the arrearage balance resulting from his payment stoppage exceeds the credit to which he would be entitled. However, the trial court made no findings demonstrating that it intended to order forfeiture of Husband’s mortgage credits.”
Next, the former husband argued the trial court’s valuation date was error and resulted in an unequal distribution to the former wife. The appellate court agreed, holding “The trial court attempted an equal distribution by assigning Wife responsibility for the mortgage alongside ownership of the home and granting equal shares of the equity in the home for Husband and Wife. However, the trial court’s erroneous selection of the valuation date for the marital home led to Wife receiving an outsized share of the equity in the marital home. This caused an unequal distribution. Because the trial court did not contemplate an unequal distribution, it did not include specific findings justifying one. In the absence of such findings, we must reverse the equitable-distribution scheme.” Last, the former husband took issue with the court’s failure to make findings as to the former wife’s expenses for purposes of the alimony award. The appellate court agreed, holding “The absence of any findings of need precludes meaningful review of the alimony award, so we reverse.”
Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to determine how the law may apply to the facts of your case.