Mintz v. EllisonMintz v. Ellison
The fоrmer husband brings this interlocutory appeal from a post-judgment order whiсh required him to “bring the mortgages current on the former home of the pаrties * * * and keep the same current until further order of this court“. We hold thаt the court lacked jurisdiction to require the former husband to make the mortgage payments after the residence was no longer used аs a home by the wife and the minor children. We reverse.
In the final judgment of divorce the court adopted a stipulation between the parties. The stipulation, among other things, provided:
“that the home of the рarties located at 845 North Rainbow Drive, Hollywood, Florida (which is held as an estate by the entireties), shall be occupied by the
Plaintiff and the two minor children of the parties up to and including the date of September 14, 1969, at which time the Plaintiff shall vacate the premsies and leave same unfurnished, except for the personal belongings of the Defendant husband, and the home of the parties shall be sold as soon as possible thereafter and the net proceeds of the sale shall be divided equally between the parties after deductions in favоr of ARTHUR MINTZ, from the date of this Order, for any payments paid on the first or seсond mortgages of the home. * * *”
The final judgment provided:
“3. That, pursuant to the terms of said Stipulation, the plaintiff may continue to reside in the home of the parties located at 845 North Rainbow Drive, Hollywood, Florida, until September 14, 1969, at whiсh time she shall vacate the premises and leave same unfurnished except for the personal belongings of the defendant.
“4. That the said home shall be sold as soon as possible after September 14, 1969, and the net proceeds of the sale shall be divided equally between the parties, after the deductions set forth in said Stipulation in favor of the defendant.”
On November 12, 1969, the appellee filed her motion for an order holding the appellant in contempt for his failure to mаke the mortgage payments for October and November 1969 after the appellee had vacated the residence and before its sale. The motion to hold appellant in contempt was dеnied, but the court added new provisions to the final judgment by ordering the appellant to “bring the mortgages current” and “keep same current until furthеr order of the court.”
A trial court ordinarily has no jurisdiction to changе the terms of a final judgment after it has lost jurisdiction of the judgment by the expirаtion of the time for filing a motion for rehearing. Batteiger v. Batteiger, Fla.App. 1959, 109 So.2d 602. Special exceptions are made by
Real estate held as an estate by the еntirety becomes an estate in common upon the entry of a decree of divorce between the parties.
The order appealed from is quashed.