Margaret Carol Burns - Page 13

                                       - 12 -                                         
          circumstances demonstrate that this $1,400 per month was intended           
          to service Mr. Burns's portion of the mortgage indebtedness and             
          to cover his share of the maintenance, taxes, insurance, and                
          similar expenses of the marital home (including sale preparation            
          expenses) until such time as the marital home could be sold and             
          the proceeds divided.8  As such, the payments were integral to              
          the couple's division of property.  In addition, the payments               
          were subject to a contingency other than the joint lives of the             
          former spouses (i.e., "until such time as the marital home is               
          sold"), which indicates that they were a property settlement                
          rather than alimony.  See Underwood v. Underwood, supra at 288.             
          Moreover, petitioner relinquished other valuable property rights            
          in the MSA, which supports the same conclusion.  Indeed, on very            
          similar facts, wherein periodic payments were to be made for the            
          purpose of maintaining the marital residence until it was sold,             
          the payments were held to be a property settlement rather than              
          alimony.  Bockoven v. Bockoven, 444 So. 2d 30, 31-32 (Fla. Dist.            
          Ct. App. 1983); see also Salomon v. Salomon, 196 So. 2d 111, 113            
          (Fla. 1967) (payments terminating upon wife's failure to own or             
          reside in designated residence are not alimony but a property               

               8 To the extent some portion of the monthly payment was                
          intended for and in fact expended on the care of the couple's               
          jointly owned pets, it is consistent with a property settlement             
          rather than alimony.                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011