PAUL SHIMEK, JR., APPELLANT/RESPONDENT,
v.
MONA L. SHIMEK, APPELLEE/PETITIONER
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed trial court's authority to require an alimony-obligor husband to secure alimony payments through an unencumbered life insurance policy naming the wife as beneficiary, and to order payment of the wife's attorney's fees.
A trial court may require a party ordered to pay alimony to purchase or maintain a life insurance policy to secure such alimony payments under Florida Statutes Section 61.08(3).
[1] Under Florida Statutes Section 61.08(3), a trial court may require a party ordered to pay alimony to purchase or maintain a life insurance policy to secure the alimony aw…
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 intelligenceHusband appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage in which the trial court required him to secure alimony payments through an unencumbered …
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 For Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
Appellant husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, alleging that the trial court erred in (1) requiring appellant to secure the payment of alimony by an unencumbered life insurance policy naming the wife as beneficiary; and (2) ordering appellant to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm.
This court has recently held that under Section 61.08(3), Florida Statutes (1985),1 a trial court may, where the circumstances so warrant, require a party who is ordered to pay alimony to purchase or maintain a life insurance policy to secure such alimony. Fiveash v. Fiveash, 523 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) and McMath v. McMath, 526 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Pursuant to this court’s recent decisions, the trial court’s requirement that appellant secure the payment of alimony by obtaining a life insurance policy was proper. We also affirm on the second issue pertaining to the trial court’s ordering appellant to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees and costs.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, C.J., and BOOTH, J., concur. . Section 61.08(3), Florida Statutes (1985) provides in pertinent part:
(3) To the extent necessary to protect an award of alimony, the court may order any party who is ordered to pay alimony to purchase or maintain a life insurance policy or a bond, or to otherwise secure such alimony award with any other assets which may be suitable for that purpose.
PER CURIAM.
By his motion for rehearing, appellant asks that we certify the question stated below to the Florida Supreme Court as a question of great public importance. We grant such motion and, as we did in Fiveash v. Fiveash, 523 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) and McMath v. McMath, 526 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), certify the following:
Does § 61.08(3) Florida Statutes (1985) authorize a trial court to require an alimony paying spouse to maintain a life insurance policy securing said alimony award, such that upon the death of the paying spouse the receiving spouse is only entitled to receive from the insurance the sum total of any existing alimony arrearages?
SMITH, C.J., and BOOTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nelson v. Nelson, 795 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…elman v. Sobelman, 541 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla.1989), although it did not spell out the kinds of circumstances or [*986] equities which would make the award “appropriate.” See O’Connor v. O’Connor, 782 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Shimek v. Shimek, 532 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), approved, 545 So. 2d 837 (Fla.1989); Fiveash v. Fiveash, 523 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). See also Kowalczyk v. Kowalczyk, 627 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (Altenbernd, J., concurring specially). Courts have found security…
-
Shimek v. Shimek, 545 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1989)…OVERTON, Justice. We have for review Shimek v. Shimek, 532 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), in which the district court, upon the former husband’s petition for rehearing, certified the following question: Does § 61.08(3), Florida Statutes (1985) authorize a trial court to require an alimony paying spouse to maintain…
Authorities Cited
- Fiveash v. Fiveash, 523 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Neathery v. State, 526 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)