BRUNO F. TASSONE, APPELLANT,
v.
JERRIE RUTH SHAYNE MCKINNEY TASSONE, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Life Insurance Beneficiary Designation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Both parties have appealed from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
We find ample evidence in the record to uphold the final judgment’s requirement that the husband maintain a life insurance policy for five years, a period that corresponds to the time it will take the parties’ youngest child to reach the age of eighteen, as a provision intended to provide security for child support payments. See Bosem v. Bosem, 279 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1973). We must remand, however, for entry of an amended final judgment requiring the husband to name and maintain the child, instead of the wife, as beneficiary of the policy. Putman v. Putman, 154 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
We find no merit in any of the other points raised by the parties and, accordingly, affirm the trial court in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOON-OVER and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
State St. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Jubran A. Badra and Emily G. Badra, 765 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ummary judgment based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. See Stogniew v. McQueen, 656 So. 2d 917, 919 (Fla.1995); University Hosp., Ltd. v. State, Agency for Health Care Admin., 697 So. 2d 909, 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); and Hittel v. Rosenhagen, 492 So. 2d 1086, 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). REVERSED AND REMANDED. GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
Alpha v. Alpha, 885 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…. Richardson, 722 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). . Moorehead v. Moorehead, 745 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). . Hill v. Hooten, 776 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). . See Parker v. Parker, 655 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Tassone v. Tassone, 492 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). . The Rowe factors. See Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla.1985), modified by, Standard Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1990). . Compare Zahringer v. Zahringer, 813 So. 2…
-
U.S. Project Mgmt., Inc. v. Parc Royale E. Dev., Inc., 861 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…judgment must reflect 1) identity in the thing sued for; 2) identity of the cause of action; 3) identity of persons and parties of the action, and 4) identity of the quality in the person for or against whom the claim is made.” Hittel v. Rosenhagen, 492 So. 2d 1086, 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Donahue v. Davis, 68 So. 2d 163, 169 (Fla.1953). Thus if there is no common identity of the cause of action, the defense of res judicata will be unsuccessful. The general test when “deciding whether the cause of action is…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bosem v. Arie Lionel Bosem, 279 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1973)
- Putman v. Putman, 154 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)