MAURICE A. PERKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
EDNA B. PERKINS, 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 court cannot require a husband to maintain life insurance for the benefit of the wife after final judgment, but can require it for the benefit of children.
The husband appealed aspects of a dissolution judgment, including the award of the marital home as alimony, a special equity in his business, and a re…
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 Special Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
The respondent husband appeals from those aspects of an amended final judgment of dissolution which, inter alia, (1) awarded the jointly owned marital domicile to the wife as partial lump sum alimony, (2) determined the wife was entitled to a special equity in the husband’s business, (3) required the husband to maintain in effect certain life insurance and hospitalization insurance policies for the benefit of the wife and children.
We find adequate support in the record for the award of lump sum alimony. See cases cited at 10A, Fla.Jur., Dissolution of Marriage, etc., § 67. Similarily there is sufficient evidence to justify a finding that the wife has a special equity in the husband’s busiriess.
We deem the provision of the final judgment requiring the husband to “maintain the life insurance policies presently in effect on the lives of the Respondent [husband], Petitioner [wife] and the children of the parties . . .” to be overly broad. The chancellor 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 all respects except as to the provisions thereof relative to life insurance for the wife. Upon remand the chancellor is directed to amend the final judgment so as to eliminate therefrom any provision requiring the husband to maintain life insurance for the benefit of the wife.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
OWEN, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Linn v. Linn, 464 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…intain life insurance for the benefit of the wife. We therefore quash that award. Blais v. Blais, 410 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Weinschel v. Weinschel, 379 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 390 So. 2d 827 (Fla.1980); Perkins v. Perkins, 310 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Wilbur v. Wilbur, 299 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Third, the trial court established that the wife’s remarriage or earning up to $15,000 per year would not be considered grounds for modification of the alimony awards. While,…
-
Stith v. Stith, 384 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…r husband to maintain insurance on his life for the benefit of his former wife in the event he should predecease her. The courts viewed such a requirement as tantamount to an award of alimony extending beyond the husband’s death. Perkins v. Perkins, 310 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Putman v. Putman, 154 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). That appears to be a traditional view, Annot., 59 A.L.R.3d 9 (1974). Our supreme court, however, has not expressly embraced that view. In a continuing marriage, a husband who…
-
Eagan v. Eagan, 392 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…alimony. Weinschel v. Weinschel, 379 So. 2d 145 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Dutton v. Dutton, 379 So. 2d 111 (Fla.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 r…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bosem v. Arie Lionel Bosem, 279 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1973)
- Putman v. Putman, 154 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Peteler v. Peteler, 145 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Hartman G. Wilbur v. Wilbur, 299 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Faidley v. Faidley, 298 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)