ROBERT MAHAN, APPELLANT,
v.
IDA M. MAHAN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the trial court's awards of permanent alimony, the husband's interest in the marital home, and attorney's fees, but reversed the requirement that the husband maintain life insurance with the wife as beneficiary because alimony obligations cease upon death.
A trial court may not require an obligor to maintain life insurance with the former spouse as beneficiary to secure alimony obligations, as alimony ceases upon the obligor's death.
[1] A trial court lacks authority to require an obligor to maintain life insurance with the former spouse as beneficiary to secure alimony obligations, as the obligation to p…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the obligation to pay alimony ceases upon the death of the obligated party”
Court's reasoning for striking the life insurance requirement, citing O'Malley v. Pan American Bank
In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court awarded the wife permanent alimony, awarded the husband an interest in the marital home, and …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Life Insurance As Security cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Chief Judge.
We reject the husband’s arguments that the trial court erred in awarding the wife permanent alimony, the husband’s interest in the marital home, and attorney’s fees. These awards are all supported by substantial, competent evidence and are within the trial court’s discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
We agree, however, with the husband’s contention that the trial court erred in requiring him to maintain a policy of life insurance on his life with the wife as a named beneficiary. Eagan v. Eagan, 392 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Watterson v. Watterson, 353 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Blass v. Blass, 316 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Perkins v. Perkins, 310 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). See also, O'Malley v. Pan American Bank, 384 So. 2d 1258 (Fla.1980), for the proposition that the obligation to pay alimony ceases upon the death of the obligated party. Accordingly, we strike from the final judgment of dissolution paragraph 11, which requires the husband to maintain a policy of insurance on his life with his wife as beneficiary. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment.
We provisionally grant the wife’s motion for attorney’s fees for services of her counsel on appeal in accordance with the rationale of Dresser v. Dresser, 350 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). We remand to the trial court to make a determination of the amount of a reasonable fee for such services and the portion thereof that the husband should be required to pay based on the disparity in the parties’ needs and abilities to pay.
GRIMES and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. Moore, 543 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…post-mortem alimony. This kind of award is not permissible under Florida law absent an agreement by the parties. O’Malley v. Pan American Bank of Orlando, 384 So. 2d 1258 (Fla.1980); Gregg v. Gregg, 474 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Mahan v. Mahan, 415 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 424 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1982); Eagan v. Eagan, 392 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). No such agreement exists in this case. However, section 61.08(3) provides: (3) To the extent necessary to protect an award of alimony, the c…
-
Dwyer v. Dwyer, 513 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…and we agree, that the trial court erred in requiring the husband to maintain a life insurance policy with the wife as the primary beneficiary until she reaches age sixty-five. Sobelman v. Sobelman, 490 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Mahan v. Mahan, 415 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 424 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1982). The husband’s obligation to pay alimony terminates with his death. See O’Malley v. Pan American Bank, 384 So. 2d 1258 (Fla.1980). The wife contends that the insurance required by the court is no…
-
NOE v. NOE, 431 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…as designated beneficiary until his child support ($2500 per year per minor child) and alimony (permanent periodic alimony of $21,000 per year terminable on the wife’s death or remarriage) obligations terminate. The husband relies on Mahan v. Mahan, 415 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), wherein this court held that a requirement that a husband maintain life insurance under such circumstances as these is, in effect, a requirement that he pay alimony at death, which is improper since an obligation to pay permanent…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Iva C. O'Malley v. PAN Am. Bank OF Orlando, 384 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1980)
- Peavy v. State, 350 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Dresser v. Dresser, 350 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- McQUIGGAN v. State, 392 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Eagan v. Eagan, 392 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Blass v. Blass, 316 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Perkins v. Perkins, 310 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Peerless Realty Co. & Jack Sakson v. Fla. Real Est. Comm'n ex rel. C. J. Feidel & Harold L. Clark, 353 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Watterson v. Earline O. Watterson, 353 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)