WENDELL CREWS, APPELLANT,
v.
SANDRA L. PERKINS F/K/A SANDRA LEE CREWS, 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 Florida divorce appeal, the husband challenges the trial court's alimony award, property distribution, and directive regarding life insurance. The appellate court affirms the final judgment, finding the trial court properly complied with statutory requirements and did not abuse its discretion.
The trial court properly complied with statutory requirements for alimony awards despite not explicitly labeling its findings as such; the unequal property distribution was not an abuse of discretion as it was adequately explained as a consequence of the lump sum alimony award; and the requirement that parties work together to obtain life insurance does not constitute an abuse of discretion as the judgment does not mandate the husband obtain insurance unilaterally.
[1] A trial court complies with statutory requirements for determining an alimony award when relevant findings regarding statutory factors are set forth in the adjudicatory p…
[2] A trial court's award of lump sum alimony can justify a disparity in the distribution of marital assets.
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“Although not labeled as findings of fact, the relevant findings with regard to the statutory factors are set forth in the adjudicatory portion of the final dissolution judgment.”
Establishes that trial court compliance with statutory alimony factors does not require explicit 'findings of fact' label if factors are addressed in the judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWendell Crews and Sandra Perkins were parties to a marriage dissolution. The trial court awarded alimony to the wife, distributed marital property in …
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 Alimony Award Factors cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, J.
Wendell Crews (the husband) appeals the final judgment dissolving his marriage to Sandra Perkins (the wife). The husband contends the trial court 1) reversibly erred by failing to set forth findings of fact regarding the statutory factors which must be considered in awarding alimony; and 2) abused its discretion in awarding alimony, distributing marital property, and directing the husband to maintain life insurance to secure the payment of his alimony and child support obligations. We affirm.
Review of the final dissolution judgment demonstrates that the trial court properly complied with the statutory requirements for determining an alimony award. See § 61.08, Fla. Stat. (1997). Although not labeled as findings of fact, the relevant findings with regard to the statutory factors are set forth in the adjudicatory portion of the final dissolution judgment. See Woodard v. Woodard, 634 So. 2d 782, 783 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Accordingly, we affirm the alimony award.
The husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to equally distribute the parties’ marital assets. The disparity in the property distribution was due to the trial court’s award of lump sum alimony to the wife. Our review of the record reveals that the trial court adequately explained this distribution scheme, and we conclude that the award does not constitute an abuse of discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980).
The husband also asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in directing him to obtain life insurance to secure his alimony and child support obligations without considering the cost of such insurance. The husband acknowledges that the trial court possesses the authority to require a party to acquire and maintain such insurance, but argues that the court must consider the cost of such insurance before making a determination as to alimony and equitable distribution. See Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So. 2d 1153, 1154 (Fla.1989); see also Sasnett v. Sasnett, 679 So. 2d 1265, 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). This claim of error is without merit because the final dissolution judgment does not require the husband to obtain life insurance. The judgment merely requires the parties to “work together to determine adequate life insurance on the husband to fund child support and permanent alimony.”
AFFIRMED.
COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McMULLAN v. McMULLAN, 762 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…w of the amended final dissolution judgment reveals that, although not labeled as findings of fact, the trial court properly complied with the statutory requirements by setting forth the requisite findings in sufficient detail. See Crews v. Perkins, 731 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Mr. McMullan’s three remaining claims of error relate to factual determinations made by the trial court in calculating the parties’ income and ordering support. Our review of the trial transcript reveals no abuse of discretion.…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Goldie Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1989)
- Woodard v. Jaymie Sands Woodard, 634 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Sasnett v. Odell O. Sasnett, 679 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)