FRANCES B. EDWARDS, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES F. EDWARDS, 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.
In this second appeal of a marital dissolution, the Fourth District affirmed the trial court's award of $780 per month permanent alimony but reversed and remanded regarding the trial court's failure to require the husband to maintain life insurance policies for the wife's benefit.
The court held that the trial court did not err in relying on its own findings rather than the master's recommendations regarding permanent alimony because permanent alimony was never referred to the master. The $780 monthly alimony award, while on the low side, was not an abuse of discretion given the wife's substantial marital assets and the husband's obligation to pay medical insurance. However, the court erred in failing to require the husband to continue maintaining life insurance policies as beneficiary to the wife.
[1] A trial court does not err in relying on its own findings when it conducts a full final hearing on contested issues, even if a special master was appointed for a differen…
[2] A trial court may order an obligor spouse to maintain life insurance policies for the benefit of the recipient spouse to secure an alimony award.
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 intelligence“where, as here, the trial court referred only the issue of support pendente lite to the special master, and the trial court itself conducted a full final hearing on all the contested issues, including entitlement and the amount of permanent alimony, the trial court did not err in relying on its own findings.”
Establishes that trial court was not required to adopt master's findings when it conducted its own full hearing on the issues not referred to the master
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were involved in a dissolution proceeding. In the first appeal, this court found the trial court erred in not awarding permanent alimony a…
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
PER CURIAM.
This is the second time this dissolution has been before us.
In Edwards v. Edwards, 519 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) we held that the trial court erred in failing to award the wife permanent periodic alimony. We then remanded the case for reconsideration of all financial issues permitting the court to take additional evidence, if necessary. The court held an additional hearing and thereupon entered a final judgment substantially similar to the original final judgment except that instead of the $600 rehabilitative award in the prior judgment, which we had reversed, the court awarded $780 per month in permanent alimony. The court awarded the wife the marital home which then gave her marital assets worth three times the value of assets kept by the husband. The court also ordered the husband to provide medical insurance for the wife for three years.
Appellant claims that the trial court erred in not adopting the findings of the general master appointed in the case. However, where, as here, the trial court referred only the issue of support pendente lite to the special master, and the trial court itself conducted a full final hearing on all the contested issues, including entitlement and the amount of permanent alimony, the trial court did not err in relying on its own findings. Simply put, the matter of permanent alimony was never referred to the general master. Going then to the merits, and considering the marital assets awarded to the wife and the requirement that the husband pay the wife’s medical insurance for a period of three years, we cannot conclude that an award of $780 per month in permanent alimony, while on the low side, is an abuse of discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Gaster v. Gaster, 391 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Further, although the trial court may have discretion to make the increased award of alimony retroactive to the date of the original final judgment as appellant requests, cf. Wright v. Wright, 411 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), we cannot say the court abused its discretion here.
We do find, however, that the court did err in failing to require the husband to continue his life insurance policie's for the benefit of the wife. At the first hearing in 1987 the husband volunteered that these policies were in force and effect for the wife. Having acknowledged those policies, including the policy through his employer, were to benefit the wife, we think the court erred in not including as part of the final judgment a requirement that he continue her as a beneficiary on them and that they be kept in force. See also Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1989), which holds that the court may order an obligor spouse to provide life insurance to protect an award of alimony to a spouse pursuant to section 61.08(3), Florida Statutes (1985).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HERSEY, C.J., and WARNER and GARRETT, 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)…consider the financial impact of an order requiring a spouse to maintain life insurance so that a requirement to pay premiums should be taken into account in the determination of the amount of alimony awarded); see also Wrinkle; Edwards v. Edwards, 559 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).…
-
Edwards v. Edwards, 730 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…nd this court upheld the amount of the permanent alimony award but determined that the trial court had erred in failing to require the former husband to continue his life insurance policies for the benefit of the former wife. See Edwards v. Edwards, 559 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)(Edwards II). After Edwards II was remanded, a supplemental agreed final order was entered which required the former husband to “maintain” several insurance policies and give the former wife annual notification that the policies w…
-
Wrinkle v. Wrinkle, 592 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…rial court would have to consider the financial impact of such an order upon the obligated spouse, so that a requirement to pay premiums should be taken into account in the determination of the amount of alimony awarded. See also Edwards v. Edwards, 559 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The point is that alimony and an order requiring security for the alimony should be considered by the trial court together. If the trial court intended for the former wife to receive a full $1,000.00 in alimony, then having the…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Goldie Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1989)
- Wright v. Wright, 411 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Gaster v. Gaster, 391 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Edwards v. Edwards, 519 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Bain v. State, 519 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)