Jones v. Jones

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jones v. Jones

789 So. 2d 1234, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10364, 2001 WL 830568

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 25, 2001

DocketNo. 4D00-3796

StatusPublished

This text of 789 So. 2d 1234 (Jones v. Jones) 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

Jones v. Jones, 789 So. 2d 1234, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10364, 2001 WL 830568 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On rehearing of the final judgment of dissolution, the trial court clarified the judgment. It limited the provision requiring the husband to provide life insurance so that it only provided security for alimony arrearages, relying on Keith v. Keith, 537 So.2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Keith held that a life insurance requirement may be imposed only to secure potential alimony arrearages. 537 So.2d at 139-40. However, Keith relied on Sobelman v. Sobelman, 516 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), which was reversed by the supreme court in Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So.2d 1153 (Fla.1989). The supreme court held that “section 61.08(3) permits the trial court to order an obligated spouse, as an integral part of the equitable distribution and support scheme, to purchase life insurance or other security either to satisfy arrearages or to otherwise protect the receiving spouse in appropriate circumstances.” Id. at 1154-55 (emphasis added).

[1235]*1235We therefore reverse and remanded for consideration of whether other appropriate circumstances required the husband to maintain life insurance.

POLEN, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

On rehearing of the final judgment of dissolution, the trial court clarified the judgment. It limited the provision requiring the husband to provide life insurance so that it only provided security for alimony arrearages, relying on Keith v. Keith, 537 So.2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Keith held that a life insurance requirement may be imposed only to secure potential alimony arrearages. 537 So.2d at 139-40. However, Keith relied on Sobelman v. Sobelman, 516 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), which was reversed by the supreme court in Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So.2d 1153 (Fla.1989). The supreme court held that “section 61.08(3) permits the trial court to order an obligated spouse, as an integral part of the equitable distribution and support scheme, to purchase life insurance or other security either to satisfy arrearages or to otherwise protect the receiving spouse in appropriate circumstances.” Id. at 1154-55 (emphasis added).

[1235]*1235We therefore reverse and remanded for consideration of whether other appropriate circumstances required the husband to maintain life insurance.

POLEN, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

789 So. 2d 1234, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10364, 2001 WL 830568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-jones-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack