Faidley v. Faidley

298 So. 2d 425
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 9, 1974
Docket74-193
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 298 So. 2d 425 (Faidley v. Faidley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Faidley v. Faidley, 298 So. 2d 425 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

298 So.2d 425 (1974)

Robert Franklin FAIDLEY, Appellant,
v.
Dorothy Ann FAIDLEY, Appellee.

No. 74-193.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 9, 1974.

*426 Robert D. Zahner, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Alfred Kreisler, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

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 appellee 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gregg v. Gregg
474 So. 2d 262 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Eagan v. Eagan
392 So. 2d 988 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Dutton v. Dutton
379 So. 2d 111 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Perkins v. Perkins
310 So. 2d 438 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
298 So. 2d 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faidley-v-faidley-fladistctapp-1974.