CHARLES SIMON, APPELLANT,
v.
SALLY SIMON, 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 Florida appellate court reversed an order requiring a divorced father with full custody of his two minor children to maintain a $100,000 life insurance policy for their benefit. The court held that while Section 61.13(3) of the Florida Statutes may permit such insurance requirements in appropriate circumstances, it is improper to impose them when the children are in the custody of the person obligated to support them.
The court reversed the order requiring life insurance, holding that while Section 61.13(3) may permit such requirements under proper circumstances, it is improper to impose them when the children are in the custody of the person obligated for their support.
[1] A court may order a party to maintain life insurance as security for child support payments when equitable and circumstances warrant.
[2] A court may not require a parent to maintain life insurance for the benefit of minor children when those children are in the custody of and supported by that parent.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“in our opinion, under the circumstances of this case, it was not proper to impose such a requirement”
The court's core holding that the insurance requirement was improper given the specific facts of the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Simon was awarded custody of his two minor children (ages 17 and 6) following divorce litigation with his former wife Sally Simon. The trial c…
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 Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order, modifying a final judgment dissolving marriage, as amended, requiring appellant, defendant in the trial court, to maintain and keep in full force and effect on his life a $100,000 term life insurance policy for the benefit of his two minor children, ages 17 and 6 respectively. Said order modified a previous order of the trial court requiring defendant to maintain similar insurance for the benefit of his former wife, appellee and plaintiff in the trial court.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in entering the order because its effect was to guarantee the future payment of child support to his two children, when it was undisputed that he had permanent custody of them.
The record before us shows that the custody of defendant’s two children was awarded to him after lengthy divorce litigation between him and his former wife, resulting in prior appeals to this court. As a final result of this litigation, defendant was granted custody of his two children in 1972, and has the sole obligation to support and care for them. Defendant is remarried and is raising two other children by his wife of a previous marriage in addition to the children in the case stib judice. The record further indicates that defendant is retired, is in good health and does not engage in any type of dangerous occupation.
Section 61.13(3), Fla.Stat., F.S. A., provides that in any proceeding under this chapter [Divorce], the court, at any stage of the proceeding and after final judgment, may make such orders about what security is to be given for the care, custody, and support of the minor children of the marriage as from the circumstances of the parties and the nature of the case is equitable. Although this section has often been interpreted by the courts of this state, we are unable to find any case in which such security has been required when the children involved in the divorce were in the custody of the person obligated for their support, in this case the defendant father. While Section 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 requires defendant to maintain insurance on his life for the benefit of his minor children, is reversed. Wilson v. Wilson, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 45; Lindley v. Lindley, Fla.1955, 84 So. 2d 17; and see 59 A.L.R.3d 9.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eagan v. Eagan, 392 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…o. 2d 863 (Fla.1973); Higgins v. Higgins, 348 So. 2d 48 (Fla.1st DCA 1977); Eberly v. Eberly, 344 So. 2d 886 (Fla.4th DCA 1977); Lithgow v. Lithgow, 340 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Plant v. Plant, 320 So. 2d 455 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Simon v. Simon, 319 So. 2d 46 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). This basis for requiring the maintenance of life insurance is not applicable in this case because the four children of [*990] the parties are independent adults and the dissolution decree, after specifically recognizing that the a…
-
Eberly v. Eberly, 344 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…case the ambiguity created in Riley, Bosem, and the other decisions cited. It makes the two daughters placed in Mr. Eberly’s custody equal insurance beneficiaries with the four sons placed in Mrs. Eberly’s custody. Under the view of Simon v. Simon, 319 So. 2d 46 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), it is improper to require a father with custody of minor children to maintain insurance on his life as security for support owed those children. That view is surely consistent with the idea of insurance securing support payments o…1 / 2
-
Curley v. Curley, 327 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…ade permanent, all child support for this child should have ceased.1 Goldstein v. Goldstein, Fla.App. 1972, 264 So. 2d 49; In Re Gregory, Fla. 1975, 313 So. 2d 735; Feldman v. Feldman, Fla.App.1975, 317 So. 2d 136; Cf. Simon v. Simon, Fla.App.1975, 319 So. 2d 46. We have examined the appellant’s point as to attorney’s fees and find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in the award as made. Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the order here under review is modified to provide permanen…
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
- Bosem v. Arie Lionel Bosem, 279 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1973)
- Forrest B. Lindley v. Lindley, 84 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1955)
- Black v. Elliot L. Miller, 219 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Harloff v. Harloff, 279 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Wilson v. Anne C. Wilson, 163 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)