THEODORE LOWE, APPELLANT,
v.
TERRI ANN LOWE, 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 reversed trial court's order requiring Theodore Lowe to procure life insurance to secure alimony payments because the issue was not raised in the contempt motion or litigated at the hearing.
A trial court lacks authority to order a payor to obtain life insurance to secure alimony payments when the payee failed to raise the issue in the motion for contempt or at the hearing.
[1] A trial court lacks authority to order a payor to obtain life insurance to secure alimony payments when the payee did not seek such relief in the motion for contempt or l…
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 intelligenceTheodore Lowe was ordered by the trial court to procure a life insurance policy within 30 days to secure his alimony payments to Terri Ann Lowe follow…
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.
Theodore Lowe appeals from a an order granting Terri Ann Lowe’s third motion for contempt and other relief and ordering him to procure a life insurance policy to secure payment of alimony within 30 days. He argues that the trial court erred when it ordered him to procure the life insurance policy. We agree and reverse.
The trial court erred when it ordered Theodore Lowe to 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 So. 2d 1255, 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Wallace v. Wallace, 605 So. 2d 504, 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (error for trial court to award relief not requested in the pleadings nor supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing). Accordingly, the order is reversed to the extent that it requires Theodore Lowe to procure a life insurance policy.
REVERSED.
GUNTHER, KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miulli v. Miulli, 832 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…it was error.1 The Wife’s counsel concedes the trial court erred in ordering life insurance to be maintained by the Husband as security for the lump sum alimony obligation. This issue was neither pleaded nor litigated by consent. See Lowe v. Lowe, 789 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In addition, there was no evidence or findings as to the Husband’s insurability, the cost of the proposed insurance, or the Husband’s ability to afford such insurance. See Scalabroni v. Scalabroni, 807 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 20…
-
Esad Kurtanovic v. Zineta Kurtanovic, 248 So. 3d 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Wallace v. Susanne M. Wallace, 605 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Keitel v. Keitel, 724 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Williamitis v. Williamitis, 741 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)