MICHELLE C. EARL, APPELLANT,
v.
ROGER A. EARL, 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 reversed and remanded to require the former husband to maintain $100,000 in life insurance as orally pronounced, but affirmed the trial court's award of durational rather than permanent periodic alimony.
A trial court's oral pronouncement requiring maintenance of life insurance must be included in the written final judgment of dissolution.
[1] A trial court's oral pronouncement regarding life insurance requirements in a dissolution judgment must be reflected in the written final judgment to be enforceable.
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 intelligence“The written findings must be amended to conform with the oral pronouncement.”
Court citing Y.G. v. Dep't of Children & Families to support the requirement that oral pronouncements be reflected in written judgments.
In a dissolution of marriage, the trial court orally pronounced that the former husband must maintain $100,000 in life insurance to cover the house pa…
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 Durational Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
The former wife appeals a final judgment of dissolution. She argues the trial court erred in awarding her durational, rather than permanent periodic alimony, and in failing to require the former husband to maintain life insurance. The former husband agrees that the court erred in failing to provide for life insurance in the final judgment of dissolution. We *436agree and reverse on this issue only, finding no error in the court’s award of dura-tional alimony.
The trial court orally pronounced:
The [former] husband will get his life insurance policy with a value of eight thousand nine hundred and sixty-one dollars. He is to keep that life insurance policy in place, in the sum of one hundred thousand dollars — I know it’s two hundred thousand, but a hundred thousand should be dedicated, should he die, to do two things: Cover the balancing payment on the house and cover alimony, which I will go into in detail shortly.
The former husband agrees that the final judgment failed to include this requirement. We therefore reverse and remand to allow the trial court to include the former husband’s requirement to maintain $100,000 in life insurance. Y.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 830 So.2d 212, 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“The written findings must be amended to conform with the oral pronouncement.”). We affirm on the alimony issue.
Reversed and Remanded.
KLINGENSMITH, J., and ROBY, WILLIAM L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- E.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 830 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Y.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 830 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)