CHARLES M. PINION, APPELLANT,
v.
BARBARA J. PINION, 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.
A spouse cannot be required to maintain life insurance to secure alimony obligations absent special circumstances.
The former husband appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging equitable distribution, alimony awards, and a life insurance requ…
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 Lump Sum Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Chief Judge.
Charles M. Pinion, the former husband, appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, arguing that the trial court committed numerous errors in its equitable distribution of the parties’ assets, the award of permanent periodic alimony, the award of lump sum alimony, and the requirement that Mr. Pinion maintain life insurance. We affirm on all issues except for the requirement that Mr. Pinion maintain life insurance to secure the alimony obligation, which we reverse.
The parties had been married for thirty-two years at the time of the divorce. Their two children are now adults. The marriage’s lifestyle was supported by a family business. We find no abuse of discretion in the equitable distribution and alimony awards. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). While this court may not have made the same decisions, neither are we able to state that the trial court abused its discretion in the decisions it made.
We do find error, however, in the trial court’s requirement that Mr. Pinion maintain his life insurance policy on behalf of Barbara J. Pinion, the former wife. In the absence of special circumstances, a spouse cannot be required to maintain life insurance for the purposes of securing alimony obligations. See Kearley v. Kearley, 745 So. 2d 987, 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (Altenbernd, J., concurring); Moorehead v. Moorehead, 745 So. 2d 549, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). No special circumstances are present in this case.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
CASANUEYA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Alpert v. Alpert, 886 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…the Wife’s alimony because the trial [*1003] court did not find any special circumstances to justify such an award and the record does not contain any evidence supporting it. See Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Pinion v. Pinion, 818 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The Wife properly concedes error on this point. Accordingly, we reverse this requirement in the final judgment. THE $25,000 DEBT On February 16, 2001, and February 28, 2001, the Husband borrowed $10,000 and $15,000 respectively…
-
Stanford R. Solomon v. Sheila A.B. Solomon, 861 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…d 549, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In the absence of special circumstances, a spouse cannot be required to maintain life insurance for the purpose of securing an alimony obligation. Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Pinion v. Pinion, 818 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). No special circumstances are present in this case; therefore, it was error to require the former husband to maintain life insurance to secure the former wife’s alimony. CONCLUSION In summary: 1. The child support award is reve…
-
Layeni v. Kehinde A. Layeni, 843 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…have ruled that in the absence of special circumstances, a spouse cannot be required to maintain life insurance for the purposes of securing support obligations. See, e.g., Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 834, 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Pinion v. Pinion, 818 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Baker v. Baker, 763 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); McDaniel v. McDaniel, 653 So. 2d 1076, 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 477 So. 2d 2, 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) ("[T]here is nothing in the law that requires [a spous…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Kearley v. Kearley, 745 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Moorehead v. Moorehead, 745 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)