GARY R. MCGINLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY C. MCGINLEY, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Life Insurance Beneficiary Designation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final judgment in all respects except the designation of the former wife as sole beneficiary of the husband’s life insurance policy.
In Brahmer v. Brahmer, 596 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), this court indicated that an insurance policy intended to secure alimony and child support should contain a beneficiary designation which reflects those purposes. The final judgment in this case directs the former husband to maintain a life insurance policy to secure alimony and child support, naming the former wife as beneficiary. The provision as to the naming of the former wife as beneficiary is hereby reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court to clarify the designation of the beneficiaries so as to separate the alimony and child support awards.
JOANOS, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. Hall, 721 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…judgment directs the former husband to “maintain the existing life insurance policy on his life naming the [former wife] as irrevocable beneficiary so long as he has an obligation of support to her or their minor daughter.” In McGinley v. McGinley, 678 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), we held that such a provision constitutes reversible eiTor. The former wife concedes as much. Accordingly, as in McGinley, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court identify the beneficiaries for child support a…
-
Gordon v. Gordon, 63 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…rthermore, as acknowledged by both parties, the trial court erred in failing to allocate the amount of life insurance designated to secure the alimony award vis-a-vis the amount designated to secure the child support award. See McGinley v. McGinley, 678 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Additionally, the life insurance securing the child support award shall be designated as being for the benefit of the children. Layeni v. Layeni, 843 So. 2d 295, 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The husband also appeals the trial court…
Authorities Cited
- Brahmer v. Brahmer, 596 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)