ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING

Our July 15, 1986 opinion incorrectly concluded that the appellant-husband had been “improperly credited with only half of the mortgage payments, insurance and taxes he indisputably expended.” In fact, as Ms. Finn’s motion for rehearing points out, the *1055computation employed below — first dividing the sale proceeds equally (thus implicitly giving credit to each party for fifty per cent of the expenses) and then giving Finn an additional credit for the wife’s half by adding that amount to his share and subtracting it from the wife’s — results in his being compensated for all the expenses as required by Finn v. Finn, 464 So.2d 1266 (Fla.3d DCA 1985). It is in accord also with Tinsley v. Tinsley, 490 So.2d 205 (Fla.3d DCA 1986), in which we upheld an identical order giving the husband a credit from the wife’s share of the proceeds so as to reimburse him for her half of the expenses which he had previously paid. Accordingly, that portion of the previous opinion which partially reversed the order under review in case no. 86-35 is withdrawn and that order is entirely affirmed.

The husband’s motion for rehearing of the affirmance in case no. 86-437 is denied.

These are appeals by the ex-husband from two orders entered following the partition of the parties’ former home required by our decision in Finn v. Finn, 464 So.2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Notwithstanding that it was stipulated, and we ordered, that the ex-husband “should be given credit ... for all, including the wife’s half,” 464 So.2d at 1267, of the expenses he paid after the dissolution,1 the order distributing the proceeds of the partition sale, under review in Case no. 86-35, reflects that he was improperly credited with only half of the mortgage payments, insurance and taxes he indisputably expended. Accordingly, the trial court shall amend the order after remand so as to require the distribution of $13,-504.88 to Mr. Finn and $11,345.12 to Mrs. Finn. On this record, we find no error in the failure to allow credit for other expenditures claimed by the ex-husband.

We also conclude that the challenge to the assessment of fees for the services of Mrs. Finn’s attorney in effecting the partition is without merit. Consequently, that order, which is before us in Case no. 86-437, is affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.