ROBERT FRANKLIN FAIDLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
DOROTHY ANN FAIDLEY, 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 held that an award of alimony and jointly owned property is affirmed, but a requirement for life insurance to secure future alimony payments is reversed.
The appellant challenged the trial court's judgment of dissolution of marriage, specifically the alimony awarded, the division of jointly owned proper…
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 Equitable Distribution Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment of dissolution of marriage. The appellant herein questions the amount of alimony awarded; the awarding to the appellee certain jointly owned property [formerly the home of her father] ; and the requiring of appellant to obtain a life insurance policy with the appellee named as beneficiary.
The award of alimony is a'factual question based upon the needs of the appel-lee and the ability of the appellant to pay. It appears the record sustains the trial court’s award and that there was no abuse of judicial discretion. Mufson v. Mufson, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 110; King v. King, Fla.App.1973, 271 So. 2d 159.
The award to the appellee of her father’s home would be sustainable under Walton v. Walton, Fla.App.1974, 290 So. 2d 110, wherein this court affirmed a similar type award.
As to the life insurance provision, it appears the trial court was in error. This appears to be an attempt by the trial court to provide alimony after death. Alimony normally terminates upon death, and the trial court has no authority to require the appellant to purchase a life insurance policy with the appellee as beneficiary. See: Putman v. Putman, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 717; Bildner v. Bildner, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 749; Wilbur v. Wilbur, Fla.App.1974, 299 So. 2d 99 (opinion filed June 28, 1974).
Therefore, so much of the final judgment as relates to alimony and the award of the home is affirmed. That portion of the final judgment requiring the appellant to provide life insurance is reversed, with directions to the trial judge to strike this provision from his final judgment.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eagan v. Eagan, 392 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…3d DCA 1979); Watterson v. Watterson, 353 So. 2d 1185 (Fla.1st DCA 1977); Blass v. Blass, 316 So. 2d 308 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Perkins v. Perkins, 310 So. 2d 438 (Fla.4th DCA 1975); Wilbur v. Wilbur, 299 So. 2d 99 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Faidley v. Faidley, 298 So. 2d 425 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Bildner v. Bildner, 219 So. 2d 749 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); Putman v. Putman, 154 So. 2d 717 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). A father can be required to maintain life insurance on his own life for the benefit of his minor children but only as secur…
-
Perkins v. Perkins, 310 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…or has no authority to require a husband to maintain life insurance for the benefit of the wife after final judgment. Peteler v. Peteler, Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 291; Putman v. Putman, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 717; Faidley v. Faidley, Fla.App.1974, 298 So. 2d 425; Wilbur v. Wilbur, Fla.App.1974, 299 So. 2d 99. On the other hand, the court may require the husband to maintain life insurance for the benefit of his children. Bosem v. Bosem, Fla.1973, 279 So. 2d 863. Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment in…
-
Gregg v. Gregg, 474 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…life insurance for the benefit of the wife were deemed attempts to impose post-mortem alimony and were held invalid.6 See Perkins v. Perkins, 310 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Wilbur v. Wilbur, 299 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Faidley v. Faidley, 298 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Putman. In the mid-to-late-1970’s, however, the courts took a small step back from the per se rule of invalidity of life insurance provisions in dissolution judgments. These cases seemed to imply that the provisions would be per…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Norwood K. Walton v. Walton, 290 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Putman v. Putman, 154 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- King v. King, 271 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Hartman G. Wilbur v. Wilbur, 299 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Bildner v. Bildner, 219 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Mufson v. Mufson, 245 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)