Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
If a Florida marital settlement agreement is silent as to reimbursement for carrying costs on a marital property, does this mean the reimbursement is waived? This was an issue in the case Levinas v. Levinas, 3D24-1233 (Fla. 3d DCA April 23, 2025).
During the parties’ marriage, they purchased an investment property in North Carolina. Their marital settlement agreement provided that the former husband would pay the mortgage, repairs and maintenance on the home pending a refinance to remove the former wife’s name from the property. The agreement provided for outcomes that included paying the former wife her share of equity in the home, refinancing the home or satisfying the mortgage. None of these occurred, and the property was eventually sold past the deadlines provided for in the agreement. The parties split the net proceeds, but the former husband claimed he was owed reimbursement from the former wife for paying the carrying costs of the home before the sale. The trial court disagreed on the basis that “[T]he settlement agreement awarded him the property as his ‘sole and separate property,’ [and] he was ‘solely responsible for all payments associated therewith.” The former husband appealed.
The appellate court noted “The Agreement in this case provided alternative outcomes. The former husband could refinance the property within six months, satisfy the mortgage, pay the wife $65,000.00, and then receive the property free of marital claims pursuant to a duly executed quitclaim deed. Alternatively, the parties could sell the property and divide the net proceeds. The first set of contingencies did not occur. Consequently, the property never became the former husband’s ‘sole and separate property, free and clear of any and all claims by the [former] Wife,’ and it therefore remained jointly owned until sold.”
Reasoning that upon divorce, the parties’ ownership of the home converted from tenants by the entireties to tenants in common, the appellate court held “Tenants in common bear equal responsibility for carrying costs. [. . . ] A co-tenant bearing a disproportionate share of such costs is entitled to reimbursement upon sale, unless the parties arrive at an agreement to the contrary.” The court further held “The Agreement is silent, however, regarding the ultimate liability for carrying costs following sale. But silence is not a waiver of the right to reimbursement. Instead, in the face of silence, the right ‘is established by operation of law.’”
The court concluded “The former wife correctly contends that carrying costs may be offset by rental income or the reasonable value of occupancy. Both of these factors may offset such costs and even eliminate reimbursement entirely if they equal or exceed the paying co-tenant’s expenditures. [. . .] The record, however, is underdeveloped in this regard. No evidence was presented on the amount of rental income, if any, the former husband received or the reasonable value of occupancy. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.”
Schedule your consultation with a Miami board-certified family law attorney to understand how the law may apply to the facts of your case.