JEROME BENSON, APPELLANT,
v.
MINETTE BENSON, 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 held that there was no reversible error in the final judgment of marriage dissolution, affirming the trial court's decisions regarding alimony, life insurance, medical insurance, and pension plan designations.
[1] A court does not abuse its discretion in awarding alimony or in determining the method of payment.
[2] A court may require a party to maintain life insurance policies naming the other party as an irrevocable beneficiary to secure alimony awards, as authorized by statute.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband appealed a final judgment of marriage dissolution. The judgment included awards of alimony, requirements to maintain life insurance and me…
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 Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the husband Jerome Benson from a final judgment of marriage dissolution. After reviewing the briefs and record filed by both parties on this appeal, we conclude that no reversible error has been shown, and, accordingly, the final judgment under review is affirmed. We reach this result based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, we see no abuse of discretion in either the amount of alimony awarded to the wife Minette Benson or in the method of payment. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Aronovitz v. Aronovitz, 439 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Koeppel v. Koeppel, 351 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Second, we see no abuse of discretion in requiring the husband Jerome Benson to maintain the wife Minette Benson as an irrevocable beneficiary on his life insurance policies, to secure the awards made herein, until such time as Mr. Benson retires, inasmuch as Section 61.08(3), Florida Statutes (1985), specifically authorizes same. The order specifies that alimony obligations cease upon Mr. Benson’s death so that any proceeds from the life insurance could not go to Mrs. Benson as invalid post-mortem alimony should Mr. Benson die prior to retirement. Third, we see no abuse of discretion in requiring Mr. Benson to maintain a major medical insurance policy on behalf of Mrs. Benson, see Cyphers v. Cyphers, 373 So. 2d 442, 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Blass v. Blass, 316 So. 2d 308, 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Lyons v. Lyons, 208 So. 2d 137, 139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), and to designate Mrs. Benson as alternative payee and surviving spouse with respect to his pension plan. Pastore v. Pastore, 497 So. 2d 635 (Fla.1986); Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1986); Bogard v. Bogard, 490 So. 2d 43, 44 (Fla.1986).
We have not overlooked Mr. Benson’s argument to the contrary on each of the above points, but, on balance, we are not persuaded thereby. The final judgment under review is, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Longo v. Longo, 533 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…s, as is reflected in the homestead laws or elsewhere in chapter 61, Florida Statutes. In my opinion, Gepfrich v. Gepfrich, 510 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), Clark v. Clark, 509 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), and the result in Benson v. Benson, 503 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), are consistent with Fiveash v. Fiveash, 523 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), which I would adopt. We should certify a conflict with Sobelman II, 516 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), and recognize that the statute now gives a trial cou…1 / 2
-
Fiveash v. Fiveash, 523 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…hich appellant has been making payments that will be obligated to pay appellee. The payments made by appellant would terminate upon his death. This arrangement does not shift the alimony obligation to the deceased’s estate. But see Benson v. Benson, 503 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987). The facts of the instant case reveal that appellee suffers from poor health and lack of employability, as did the wife in Clark. We find no error in the trial court’s determination that appellee’s alimony should be protected in…
-
Moebus v. Moebus, 529 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…and as the wife has conceded that she is entitled to share in the proceeds of said life insurance only to the extent the husband is not current with his alimony payments at the time of his death we find no abuse of discretion. See Benson v. Benson, 503 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).2 In those instances where the trial court has distributed the assets of the marriage placing the parties in equal financial positions it is error to award attorney’s fees to the wife. See Seitz v. Seitz, 471 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986)
- Pastore v. Pastore, 497 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1986)
- Helene Leslie Lyons v. Lyons, 208 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Oaklander v. Jules Oaklander, 351 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Blass v. Blass, 316 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Bogard v. Bogard, 490 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1986)
- Cooper v. Dade Cnty., 373 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Aronovitz v. Aronovitz, 439 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)