- 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
settlement).
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