Reiss v. Reiss

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Reiss v. Reiss

654 So. 2d 268, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4532, 1995 WL 247837

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 1995

DocketNo. 94-667

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 654 So. 2d 268 (Reiss v. Reiss) 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

Reiss v. Reiss, 654 So. 2d 268, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4532, 1995 WL 247837 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinions

MICKLE, Judge.

Stephen Reiss (“Appellant”), the former husband, appealed from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a subsequent order that determined, in pertinent part, 1) that Appellant’s “signing bonus” was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution (Issue II) and 2) that the payment of permanent periodic alimony to Elaine Reiss (“Appel-lee”), the former wife, would not terminate upon her remarriage (Issue I). On appeal, Appellee concedes error as to the continuation of the former husband’s alimony obligation beyond remarriage. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1202 (Fla.1980); Chaachou v. Chaachou, 135 So.2d 206, 221 [269]*269(Fla.1961). For that reason, we direct the trial court to strike the language in the final judgment providing that “such alimony payments shall NOT terminate upon the remarriage of the wife.” Otherwise, the record supports the result. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s failure to order life insurance benefits to secure the former wife’s alimony and equitable distribution awards. § 61.08(3), Fla.Stat. (1991); Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So.2d 1153, 1154 (Fla.1989). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the final judgment of dissolution as revised by the subsequent order in all respects other than to direct the trial court to strike the language providing for alimony beyond the former wife’s remarriage.

WEBSTER, J., concurs. BENTON, J., concurs and dissents with written opinion.

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

MICKLE, Judge.

Stephen Reiss (“Appellant”), the former husband, appealed from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a subsequent order that determined, in pertinent part, 1) that Appellant’s “signing bonus” was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution (Issue II) and 2) that the payment of permanent periodic alimony to Elaine Reiss (“Appel-lee”), the former wife, would not terminate upon her remarriage (Issue I). On appeal, Appellee concedes error as to the continuation of the former husband’s alimony obligation beyond remarriage. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1202 (Fla.1980); Chaachou v. Chaachou, 135 So.2d 206, 221 [269]*269(Fla.1961). For that reason, we direct the trial court to strike the language in the final judgment providing that “such alimony payments shall NOT terminate upon the remarriage of the wife.” Otherwise, the record supports the result. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s failure to order life insurance benefits to secure the former wife’s alimony and equitable distribution awards. § 61.08(3), Fla.Stat. (1991); Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So.2d 1153, 1154 (Fla.1989). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the final judgment of dissolution as revised by the subsequent order in all respects other than to direct the trial court to strike the language providing for alimony beyond the former wife’s remarriage.

WEBSTER, J., concurs. BENTON, J., concurs and dissents with written opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 So. 2d 268, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4532, 1995 WL 247837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reiss-v-reiss-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack