ANTHONY J. WILLIAMITIS, APPELLANT,
v.
DARLA L. WILLIAMITIS, 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding child residency, relocation, asset distribution, and attorney's fees, but reversed the provision requiring the husband to obtain life insurance.
The husband appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage concerning child residency, relocation, asset distribution, attorney's fees, and life…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge.
Anthony J. Williamitis timely appeals the trial court’s final judgment of dissolution of marriage which designated his wife, Darla L. Williamitis, as primary residential parent of the parties’ minor children and permitted her to relocate with them. He also complains about the distribution of assets, attorney’s fees, and required life insurance. We affirm in part, but reverse on the issue of life insurance.
The dispute over primary residency and relocation of the children vexed the trial judge, and extensive findings of fact were made to support his ruling in favor of the wife. We approve this disposition, noting that jurisdiction pertaining thereto was reserved.
The trial judge also acted correctly in effecting a fair distribution to the wife of marital assets, based on his interpretation of the parties’ prenuptial agreement. Furthermore, because of needless litigation by the parties, but notably the husband, the trial judge properly exceeded the attorney’s fee provision contained in the prenuptial agreement. On the other hand, we determine the trial judge was without authority to require the husband to obtain life insurance in order to secure his child support payments, when no such relief was sought by the wife or litigated in the proceedings. See Hedendal v. Hedendal, 695 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Schere v. Schere, 645 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
We, therefore, affirm the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, with exception of the provision requiring the husband to purchase life insurance as security for child support payments.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
PATTERSON, C.J., and BLUE, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eisele v. Eisele, 91 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…hild support. But this court has held that a trial court does not have the authority to require a party to obtain life insurance in order to secure child support payments where such relief was not sought or litigated. See Williamitis v. Williamitis, 741 So. 2d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); cf. Broome v. Broome, 821 So. 2d 406, 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (reversing requirement that Former Husband obtain life insurance to secure alimony because Former Wife did not request such relief). Even if the parties had requ…
-
Lowe v. Lowe, 789 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…obtain life insurance to secure his alimony payments, where Terri Ann Lowe failed to raise the issue of Theodore Lowe’s failure to obtain security on the alimony payments in her motion for contempt and at the hearing. See Williamitis v. Williamitis, 741 So. 2d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (A trial judge is without authority to require a husband to obtain life insurance to secure child support payments, when no such relief was sought by the wife nor litigated in the proceedings). See also Keitel v. Keitel, 724…
-
Broome v. Broome, 821 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…rage and name the wife as the irrevocable beneficiary to secure his alimony obligation. We agree because the record contains no pleading filed by the wife seeking this security, and the issue was not tried by consent. See Williamitis v. Williamitis, 741 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Accordingly, on remand the trial court shall strike the life insurance requirement from the final judgment of dissolution. The final judgment of dissolution is affirmed in all other respects. Affirmed in part; reversed in part;…
Authorities Cited
- Hedendal v. Hedendal, 695 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Schere v. Rhoda Schere, 645 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)