THOMAS THEODORE WATROUS, APPELLANT,
v.
NANCY J. WATROUS, 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 a marital dissolution appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's award of alimony but reversed and remanded the requirement that the former husband secure the alimony obligation through an annuity, finding insufficient evidence that such an annuity was commercially available or feasible.
The court affirmed the alimony award and the principle that security for alimony was appropriate under the circumstances, but reversed the specific requirement to use an annuity because the record lacked evidence demonstrating whether such an annuity was commercially available to the former husband or what its financial impact on him would be. The case was remanded for the trial court to determine whether an annuity was suitable or to identify alternative security methods.
[1] A trial court may require a party to secure alimony payments when the receiving spouse will be in dire economic straits if the paying spouse predeceases them and the payi…
[2] A trial court must have evidence demonstrating the commercial availability and feasibility of a specific method of securing alimony payments before ordering it.
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“The evidence presented to the trial court in this case demonstrates that the Former Wife will be left in dire economic straits if the Former Husband predeceases her. It also demonstrates that the Former Husband had a history of failing to satisfy his financial obligations in general and, in particular, with regard to the Former Wife.”
Establishes the factual circumstances warranting security for alimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband and wife were dissolving their marriage. Evidence showed the former wife would face dire economic circumstances if the former husba…
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
SALCINES, Judge.
Thomas Theodore Watrous, the Former Husband, appeals the final judgment dissolving his marriage to Nancy J. Watrous, the Former Wife. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
In this appeal the Former Husband argues that the trial court committed reversible error by utilizing portions of a proposed final judgment submitted by the Former Wife. He also challenges the manner in which the trial court secured the alimony payments. We affirm in all respects without discussion except for the portion of the final judgment that requires the Former Husband to secure the award of alimony with an annuity payable to the Former Wife that would survive his death and terminate only on the remarriage or death of the Former Wife.
The evidence presented to the trial court in this case demonstrates that the Former Wife will be left in dire economic straits if the Former Husband predeceases her. It also demonstrates that the Former Husband had a history of failing to satisfy his financial obligations in general and, in particular, with regard to the Former Wife. The Former Wife not only sustained her burden of demonstrating circumstances sufficient to warrant an order requiring the Former Husband to provide some measure of security for his alimony obligation but also established appropriate circumstances demonstrating a need for some measure of security for the protection of her financial well-being in the event the Former Husband should predecease her. See Richardson v. Richardson, 722 So. 2d 280, 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); see also Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla.1989) (holding life insurance could be ordered as part of equitable distribution and support scheme to “either satisfy arrearages or to otherwise protect the receiving spouse in appropriate circumstances”); Sasnett v. Sasnett, 679 So. 2d 1265, 1268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (recognizing “[t]he husband’s sudden demise would seriously jeopardize the wife’s well being, both financially and health-wise,” this court determined “[t]he present circumstances clearly demonstrate the ‘appropriate circumstances’ to require some form of security to secure the alimony award”).
The trial court accomplished this task by requiring the Former Husband to obtain an annuity payable to the Former Wife that would survive his death and terminate only on the remarriage or death of the Former Wife.
However, there is a complete dearth of evidence demonstrating whether such an annuity was commercially available for these purposes and, if so, whether it was available to the Former Husband.
Furthermore, the trial court failed to address the financial impact on the Former Husband created by the annuity requirement. Because the record before us does not contain any evidence concerning the annuity, we reverse the portion of the final judgment that requires the Former Husband to secure the alimony award with an annuity and remand for further proceedings to determine the propriety of using the annuity, or if that proves to be unsuitable, some other method of securing the Former Husband’s alimony obligation and protecting the Former Wife’s financial well-being. In all other respects we affirm.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
KELLY and WALLACE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Goldie Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1989)
- Sasnett v. Odell O. Sasnett, 679 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Richardson v. Leaman Richardson, 722 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)