PAUL SHIMEK, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
MONA L. SHIMEK, RESPONDENT
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.
Section 61.08(3), Florida Statutes, authorizes a trial court to require an alimony-paying spouse to maintain a life insurance policy to secure alimony awards, not solely for arrearages.
The First District Court of Appeal certified a question regarding whether § 61.08(3) allows a trial court to mandate life insurance for alimony securi…
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
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 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?
Id. at 687. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.
We answer this question in the negative in accordance with our recent decision in Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1989), in which we concluded that section 61.08(3) allows broader use of life insurance policies than just to compensate for existing alimony arrearages. In considering a similar factual situation in Sobel-man, we specifically held that section 61.-08(3) “permits the trial court to order an obligated spouse, as an integral part of the equitable distribution and support scheme, to purchase life insurance or other security either to satisfy arrearages or to otherwise protect the receiving spouse in appropriate circumstances.” .Id. at 1154-55 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative and approve the decision of the district court.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and McDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richardson v. Leaman Richardson, 722 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…a bond, or to otherwise secure such alimony award with any other assets which may be suitable for that purpose. This section “allows broader use of life insurance policies than just to compensate for existing alimony arrearages.” Shimek v. Shimek, 545 So. 2d 837 (Fla.1989). A trial court may order the purchase of insurance either to satisfy arrearages or to protect the receiving spouse “in appropriate circumstances.” Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1989). Such circumstances have been found where…
-
Nelson v. Nelson, 795 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…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 by means of life insurance appropriate when th…
Authorities Cited
- Goldie Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1989)
- Shimek v. Shimek, 532 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)