A recent Florida appellate decision, Levinas v. Levinas, issued in 2025, addresses one of the most financially significant and commonly misunderstood issues in a divorce: who is ultimately responsible for the mortgage and carrying costs of a jointly owned home after the divorce is final but before the property is sold? The case centered on a Former Husband who, per a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA), was required to make 100% of the payments on a vacation home. When his plan to buy out the Former Wife failed and the house was sold, he sought reimbursement for half of the $52,608 he had paid in carrying costs. The trial court denied his claim, reasoning that the agreement made him “solely responsible” for the payments.
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed this decision. It found that the trial court misinterpreted the agreement. The appellate court ruled that once the husband’s buyout plan failed, the parties became “tenants in common,” and the default Florida law entitling him to reimbursement kicked in because the agreement was silent on this specific scenario. However, the court also confirmed that this right to reimbursement could be offset by the rental income he received and, crucially, by the “reasonable value of occupancy” for the time he had exclusive use of the home. This case is a critical warning for anyone in Tampa signing an MSA about the dangers of ambiguous language and the complex laws governing post-divorce property.
The Default Law: What Happens to a Marital Home After a Tampa Divorce
When a married couple in Florida buys a home, they typically take title as “tenants by the entireties.” This is a special form of joint ownership available only to spouses. It has a key feature called an “automatic right of survivorship,” meaning if one spouse dies, the other automatically owns 100% of the property, without the need for probate.
However, the moment a final judgment of dissolution of marriage is signed in Tampa, that “tenancy by the entirety” is legally severed. By operation of law, the parties are instantly converted into “tenants in common” (TIC). This new form of ownership has dramatically different rules:
- Each party owns an independent, undivided 50% interest in the property.
- There is no right of survivorship. If one co-tenant dies, their 50% share goes to their heirs or beneficiaries, not to their ex-spouse.
- Each co-tenant has the right to sell, mortgage, or transfer their 50% interest (though this is often restricted by the divorce judgment).
The most important rule for the Levinas case is this: tenants in common are equally responsible for the property’s “carrying costs.” This means, as a default, each party is ultimately liable for 50% of the expenses required to preserve the property.
“Carrying costs” generally include:
- Mortgage principal and interest payments
- Property taxes
- Homeowners’ insurance
- Homeowners’ association (HOA) dues
- Necessary and reasonable repairs and maintenance (e.g., a new water heater, a roof leak repair).
This default 50/50 liability creates the legal “right to contribution” or “reimbursement.” If one co-tenant pays 100% of the $3,000 mortgage for six months (totaling $18,000), they have paid their $9,000 share and their ex-spouse’s $9,000 share. The law provides that the paying party is entitled to be reimbursed for that $9,000 overpayment. This reimbursement is typically handled as a “credit” at the closing table when the property is eventually sold. The $9,000 would be taken from the non-paying spouse’s 50% of the proceeds and given to the paying spouse before the remaining funds are split.
This is the baseline law. But in a divorce, this default is rarely the final word. The parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement has the power to—and absolutely should—change these rules.
The Power of a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA)
A Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) is a contract. It is the single most important document in any divorce. When ratified by the court and incorporated into a final judgment, its terms override the default legal rules.
An MSA gives parties the flexibility to create their own solutions. When it comes to the marital home, a well-drafted MSA from an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer will explicitly define the parties’ responsibilities, leaving no room for the kind of confusion seen in the Levinas case.
For example, an MSA can state:
- “The Former Wife shall have exclusive use and possession of the marital home until the youngest child graduates. She shall be solely responsible for the mortgage, taxes, and insurance, and she waives all rights to reimbursementfrom the Former Husband.” This is a clear waiver.
- “The Former Husband shall pay the monthly mortgage payment of $2,000. Said payment shall be deemed non-taxable spousal support and is non-modifiable.” This defines the payment as support, not a property expense, and also waives reimbursement.
- “The parties shall remain jointly responsible for all carrying costs, and any payments made by one party in excess of their 50% share shall be reimbursed at the time of sale.” This simply affirms the default rule.
The problem, as Levinas demonstrates, is what happens when an MSA is silent or, worse, ambiguous.
Deconstructing the Levinas Agreement: The Two-Plan Trap
The Levinas case is a perfect storm of contractual ambiguity. The parties’ MSA created two alternative “plans” for their jointly owned North Carolina vacation home, but it failed to clearly define the financial consequences of “Plan B.”
Plan A: The Buyout The MSA first gave the Former Husband (FH) an option to buy out the Former Wife (FW). He had six months to:
- Refinance the $429,000 mortgage (which was only in the FW’s name).
- Pay the FW $65,000 for her 50% interest.
If he successfully completed these steps, the property would become his “sole separate property.” During this six-month period (and for as long as FW’s name was on the mortgage), the agreement required the FH to “timely and fully pay” the mortgage, insurance, and repairs. In exchange, he was granted “exclusive use and possession” and could “retain all rental income.”
Plan B: The Default Sale The MSA wisely included a backup plan. It stated that if the FH did not refinance within the six-month deadline, “the property shall be listed for sale… and the proceeds shall be divided equally.”
This is exactly what happened. The Former Husband failed to refinance. The deadline passed. The property was eventually sold to a third party, and the net proceeds were split 50/50.
The Trial Court’s Error vs. The Appellate Ruling The FH then filed a claim for reimbursement for 50% of the carrying costs he paid between the divorce and the sale. The trial court denied his claim. Its reasoning was based only on Plan A. The magistrate found that because the agreement intended for the FH to own the property, he was “solely responsible for all payments.”
The Third District Court of Appeal held that this was a complete misreading of the contract. The appellate court’s logic was sharp:
- Plan A was a set of contingencies. The FH had to earn the right to own the property as his “sole separate property.”
- He failed to meet those contingencies. Therefore, the clause making it his “sole separate property” never took effect.
- The moment he failed, the agreement automatically reverted to Plan B.
- Under Plan B, the property remained jointly owned (as tenants in common) until it was sold.
This led to the central question of the appeal: What did the MSA say about reimbursement under Plan B? The answer was: nothing.
The agreement required the FH to make the payments (a practical clause to protect the FW’s credit, since the loan was in her name), but it was completely silent on whether he could be reimbursed for those payments if the home was sold.
Here, the appellate court issued its most important holding: “Silence is not a waiver of the right to reimbursement.”
Because the contract did not contain a clear, explicit waiver, the court had to “fill in the gap.” It did so by reverting to the default Florida law for tenants in common. Under that law, the FH, as a co-tenant who paid a disproportionate share of the carrying costs, is legally entitled to seek contribution from the FW.
This is a monumental takeaway for any Tampa divorce lawyer and their clients. If your MSA does not explicitly state that you waive your right to reimbursement, the court may find that you keep that right.
The Critical Counter-Argument: The “Offset” for Exclusive Use
The appellate court’s ruling did not mean the Former Husband automatically got a check. It only meant that he had the right to ask for reimbursement. The court then addressed the Former Wife’s powerful counter-argument: the claim for an “offset.”
Even if a co-tenant is entitled to reimbursement for paying 100% of the costs, that claim can be reduced, or even eliminated, by the value of any benefits that the paying co-tenant received.
The Levinas court identified two primary offsets:
- Rental Income: The MSA explicitly stated the FH was “entitled to retain all rental income.” If he rented out the vacation home, any income he received must be used to offset his claim for carrying costs.
- Reasonable Value of Occupancy: The MSA also gave the FH “exclusive use and possession.” He lived in the home. This benefit has a real, tangible financial value. The law holds that when one co-tenant has exclusive possession of a property, the other “ousted” co-tenant is entitled to their share of the home’s fair market rental value.
This offset is a critical concept that every person in a Tampa divorce must understand. “Exclusive use” is not “free use.”
Here is how the math (which the trial court must now perform on remand) works:
- Step 1: The court must determine the FH’s total reimbursable carrying costs (e.g., $52,608).
- Step 2: The court must determine the total rental income the FH received (e.g., $10,000).
- Step 3: The court must determine the fair market rental value of the home for the time the FH occupied it (e.g., $2,000/month for 20 months = $40,000).
- Step 4: The court calculates the offset. The FW is entitled to her 50% share of the net value of occupancy. For example,
(Total Rental Value) - (Total Carrying Costs). If this is a positive number, she might be entitled to 50% of it. A more common calculation is to simply offset the rental value against the reimbursement claim.
Let’s use a simpler example. Assume in one month:
- The total mortgage and carrying costs are $3,000. (FH pays this).
- The fair market rental value of the home is $4,000.
- The FH, by paying the $3,000, has a claim for $1,500 (FW’s 50%) in reimbursement.
- However, the FW has a claim for $2,000 (her 50% of the $4,000 rental value) as an offset.
- In this scenario,
($2,000 offset)–($1,500 reimbursement)= $500. The FH not only gets no reimbursement, but he would actually owe the FW $500 for that month.
Because the record at trial was “underdeveloped”—meaning no one presented evidence of the rental income or fair market rental value—the appellate court reversed and remanded. It sent the case back for a new evidentiary hearing to determine these exact numbers.
Lessons for Tampa Homeowners Facing Divorce
The Levinas case, while originating from the Third District, provides a universal and expensive lesson for all Florida residents, including those in Tampa.
1. Silence is the Enemy. The single biggest mistake in this MSA was its silence. That silence cost the parties a trial, an appeal, and now a second trial. A well-drafted MSA from a Tampa divorce lawyer will explicitly address the “what ifs.” What happens to carrying costs if the buyout fails? Is reimbursement waived or preserved? Is the right to an offset for rental value waived or preserved? Every blank must be filled in.
2. “Exclusive Use” is Not “Free Use.” This is the most common misunderstanding clients have. If you get to live in the marital home post-divorce while your ex-spouse does not, you are receiving a financial benefit. That benefit can be used to offset your claims for reimbursement. If you want this to be a “wash” (e.g., “I’ll pay the mortgage and you won’t charge me rent”), that must be written into the MSA.
3. A Contract is Read as a Whole. The trial court made the mistake of reading one clause (“sole separate property”) and ignoring all the others (like the buyout contingencies). An appellate court, and any Tampa divorce lawyer litigating the case, will read the entire document. The failure of Plan A activated Plan B. A contract’s “if-then” statements are legally binding.
4. Keep Meticulous Records. The Former Husband in Levinas now has to go back to court and prove every penny of the $52,608 he claims he paid. The Former Wife must now find an expert (like a realtor or appraiser) to prove the home’s rental value from years prior. For anyone in Tampa paying the bills on a joint home, keep every mortgage statement, every tax bill, and every Home Depot receipt. You will need them to prove your claim.
This case perfectly illustrates that the “interim” period after a divorce judgment is signed but before a home is sold is one of the most financially dangerous. The default laws are complex and often surprising. Do not assume you will be reimbursed, and do not assume your exclusive use is free.
The only way to protect yourself is to have a clear, precise, and comprehensive Marital Settlement Agreement. If you are in the Tampa area and are facing a divorce involving real estate, it is critical to seek experienced legal counsel. Contact our office for a consultation to review your situation, understand your rights, and ensure your financial future is protected from the dangers of ambiguity.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is a “tenancy in common” in a Florida divorce? When a married couple divorces, their joint ownership (tenancy by the entireties) automatically converts to a “tenancy in common.” This means each ex-spouse owns an independent 50% share of the property with no right of survivorship.
What are “carrying costs” for a marital home? Carrying costs are the expenses required to preserve the property. This typically includes the mortgage (principal and interest), property taxes, homeowners’ insurance, HOA dues, and necessary repairs.
Am I entitled to reimbursement if I pay the mortgage after the divorce? Under Florida’s default law, if you pay more than your 50% share of the carrying costs, you are entitled to reimbursement from your ex-spouse’s share when the property is sold. However, this right can be waived in your Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA).
What is a “rental value offset” against reimbursement? If you have “exclusive use” of the home while your ex-spouse does not, they may be entitled to an offset. This means your reimbursement claim for paying the mortgage can be reducedby the value of their 50% share of the home’s fair market rental value.
What happens if my MSA is “silent” on reimbursement? As the Levinas case held, silence is not a waiver. If your MSA does not explicitly say you waive your right to reimbursement, a court will likely find that you keep that right under Florida’s default “tenancy in common” laws.