RICHARD EDWARD ZIMMERMAN, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
LINDA CARTER ZIMMERMAN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a divorce judgment's asset distribution and permanent alimony award but reversed the requirement for a $100,000 life insurance policy because the record lacked evidence of the policy's cost, the obligor's ability to pay, and failed to consider the appellee's entitlement to military survivor benefits.
A trial court may order security for alimony under Fla. Stat. § 61.08(3), but only upon evidence of the insurance cost, the obligor's financial ability, and consideration of alternative resources like military survivor benefits.
[1] A court order requiring an obligor to secure an alimony award with life insurance must be supported by evidence of the insurance cost, the obligor's financial ability to…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a divorce proceeding, the trial court awarded the appellee permanent periodic alimony of fifty dollars per week and required the appellant to provi…
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 Security cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges a final judgment of dissolution of marriage by which the parties’ assets were equitably distributed and the appellee was awarded permanent periodic alimony. We affirm the judgment except as to the requirement that the appellant provide a $100,000 life insurance policy to secure the alimony award. Although section 61.08(3), Florida Statutes, specifically provides that a court may order a party to secure an alimony award, the record must contain evidence regarding the cost and availability of the policy and the financial impact of the award upon the obligated party. See, e.g., Kremer v. Kremer, 595 So. 2d 214, 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The record before us contains no evidence of the cost of this insurance or a finding that the appellant had the ability to pay. See Milo v. Milo, 718 So. 2d 343, 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Hicks v. Hicks, 654 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Further, as the parties acknowledged at oral argument, the appellee will be entitled to survivor benefits from the appellant’s military retirement in the event of his death. On remand, the trial court should consider this resource in determining the need for and amount of insurance, if any, necessary to secure the fifty dollar per week award of alimony. See generally Levin v. Levin, 745 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
Accordingly, that portion of the final judgment by which the appellant was required to provide a $100,000 life insurance policy is reversed, the judgment is otherwise affirmed, and the case is remanded.
BARFIELD, C.J, ALLEN and LAWRENCE, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. Lopez, 780 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…an order requiring the payor spouse to maintain life insurance, if reasonably available, because the record contained no evidence of the payor’s ability to afford the insurance or of the actual cost of such a policy. See also Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 755 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Similarly, in certain instances, a proper predicate may include the payor’s insurability. In Knight v. Knight, 746 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), the payor husband was fifty years of age and had had recent open heart and back…
-
Rykiel v. Rykiel, 795 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ce policy for the benefit of the former wife without evidence of the cost, availability and financial impact upon the payor spouse, which is a prerequisite to such an award. Schere v. Schere, 645 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 755 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Hicks v. Hicks, 654 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). REVERSED AND REMANDED for a new trial. PETERSON, J., and POWELL, R. W., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Forgione v. Forgione, 845 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…licy or whether the husband could afford it); Lopez v. Lopez, 780 So. 2d 164, 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (noting that “there may be an insurability question” because the husband had an artificial heart valve previously inserted); Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 755 So. 2d 730 (Fla. [*971] 1st DCA 2000) (record fails to contain any evidence regarding cost and availability of life insurance policy and the financial impact of award on the paying spouse). Given the state of the husband’s health at the time of the final judg…
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
- Kremer v. Kremer, 595 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- McHOME v. State, 718 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Hicks v. Hicks, 654 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Levin v. Levin, 745 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)