ROGER W. HARLOFF, APPELLANT,
v.
WINIFRED J. HARLOFF, 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.
Roger Harloff appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage that ordered him to pay child support, alimony, maintain health insurance for his children, and designate his three minor children as beneficiaries on his life insurance policies without the ability to encumber them. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that a trial court may require a divorced father to maintain life insurance as security for support obligations.
The court affirmed the judgment requiring Roger to maintain life insurance with his minor children as beneficiaries and prohibiting encumbrance, holding that under proper circumstances a trial court may require a divorced father to maintain insurance on his life as security for payment of maintenance and support to minor children, though this was affirmed without prejudice to later modification applications if a child reaches majority or becomes self-supporting.
[1] A trial court may require a divorced father to maintain life insurance as security for child support payments.
[2] A trial court may order a divorced father to change beneficiaries on life insurance policies to his minor children.
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“Under proper circumstances a trial court may require a divorced father to maintain insurance on his life as security for the payment of maintenance and support awarded his minor children.”
Establishes the legal principle that justifies the trial court's order requiring life insurance as security for support obligations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoger and Winifred Harloff divorced. They had three children: the oldest (19) was a college sophomore somewhat dependent on parents for tuition and ex…
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 Life Insurance As Security cases and more on FLexlaw
(Retired).
Appellant Roger W. Harloff appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, ordering, among other things, that Roger pay to his ex-wife, Winifred, the sum of $20 per week for the support of the twelve year old minor child; alimony in the amount of $10 per week; as lump sum alimony, Roger’s interest in the marital home. It ordered that Roger maintain a health and accident insurance policy on each of the three minor children during their minority. The judgment further provided :
4. In addition, the Husband shall pay to the wife as alimony, one-half of any net income he receives over $5,000, less any amounts paid by the Husband for the higher education of any of the minor children of the parties and less any amounts the husband pays on the second mortgage on the marital home of the parties. The Mortgagee on the said marital home is the law firm of Garland and Garland.
5. Net income is defined as total gross income received by the husband, less any ordinary business expenses expended to earn the said income. Said ordinary expenses shall not include depreciation or taxes.
% % * # 9,i ‡
9. The insurance policies [life] naming the husband as insured shall be turned over to the Husband and is hereby ordered to change the beneficiary on said policies to his three minor sons in equal proportions and is ordered not to change beneficiaries on said policies hereafter and not to further encumber said policies.
The parties have three children. The oldest boy, nineteen years of age, is a sophomore in college, owns his own automobile and is somewhat dependent upon his parents for his tuition, room and board. The second boy is eighteen, lives with his mother, has a take-home pay of $86 a week, pays nothing for his room, board or laundry, and owns his own car. The youngest child lives with his mother and is dependent upon his parents for support.
Roger urges that the lower court abused its discretion in requiring him to change the beneficiaries on his life insurance policies *92to the three minor children, prohibiting him from encumbering same, with no time limit imposed as to the duration.
Under proper circumstances a trial court may require a divorced father to maintain insurance on his life as security for the payment of maintenance and support awarded his minor children. We, therefore, affirm the judgment as to this provision, without prejudice, however, to any later application for modification based upon any child of the parties reaching its majority, or becoming self-supporting. Riley v. Riley, Fla.App.1961, 131 So.2d 491.
The other points raised on this appeal are without merit.
The judgment appealed is, therefore
Affirmed.
MANN, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. Moore, 311 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…0 life insurance policy for the benefit of the minor children. Under these circumstances, the insurance on the husband’s life provides security for the payment of maintenance and support awarded his minor children. Harloff v. Harloff, Fla.App. 1973, 279 So. 2d 91; Bosem v. Bosem, Fla. 1973, 279 So. 2d 863. Fifth, it was proper for the court to order the husband to maintain medical and dental insurance on the children in addition to paying all of their medical and dental expenses. It can be considered as sec…
-
Eberly v. Eberly, 344 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…s custody—equal beneficiaries of the policy benefits until the youngest child reaches 18 years of age. Numerous appellate decisions have upheld orders such as the one before us: Riley v. Riley, 131 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1st DCA 1961); Harloff v. Harloff, 279 So. 2d 91 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); Bosem v. Bosem, 279 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1973); Becker v. King, supra; Perkins v. Perkins, 310 So. 2d 438 (Fla.4th DCA 1975); Moore v. Moore, 311 So. 2d 152 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), cert. den., 324 So. 2d 87 (Fla.1975). The earlier cases sus…
-
Simon v. Simon, 319 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…on 61.13(3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., under proper circumstances, may permit a court to require that a father maintain insurance on his life as security for the maintenance and support awarded to his minor children, e.g., Harloff v. Harloff, Fla.App.1973, 279 So. 2d 91; Bosem v. Bosem, Fla.App.1973, 279 So. 2d 863; Black v. Miller, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 106; in our opinion, under the circumstances of this case, it was not proper to impose such a requirement. Therefore, the order appealed to the extent it requir…
Authorities Cited
- Riley v. Riley, 131 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)