Rubinstein v. Rubinstein

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rubinstein v. Rubinstein

866 So. 2d 80, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 20141, 2003 WL 23094835

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 31, 2003

DocketNo. 3D03-762

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 866 So. 2d 80 (Rubinstein v. Rubinstein) 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

Rubinstein v. Rubinstein, 866 So. 2d 80, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 20141, 2003 WL 23094835 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The former husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage awarding the former wife permanent periodic alimony and securing such alimony with life insurance. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part.

The former husband challenges the amount of permanent periodic alimony awarded contending that the trial court improperly intended to equalize the parties incomes. A review of the record shows that this contention lacks merit. The trial court’s order makes appropriate findings in accordance with the statutory factors to support its award. § 61.08(2), Fla. Stat. (1999). Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the final judgment.

In contrast, the former husband properly challenges the trial court’s imposition of a life insurance obligation to secure the alimony awarded to the former wife on the basis that the trial court failed to make the appropriate findings to support such an award, and no evidence was introduced on which an award could be based. § 61.08(3), Fla. Stat. (1999); Sobelman v. Sobelman, 641 So.2d 1153, 1154-55 (Fla.1989); Pinion v. Pinion, 818 So.2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Hedendal v. Hedendal, 695 So.2d 391, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we reverse this portion of the final judgment and remand for the entry of an amended final judgment deleting the insurance requirement.

Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

The former husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage awarding the former wife permanent periodic alimony and securing such alimony with life insurance. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part.

The former husband challenges the amount of permanent periodic alimony awarded contending that the trial court improperly intended to equalize the parties incomes. A review of the record shows that this contention lacks merit. The trial court’s order makes appropriate findings in accordance with the statutory factors to support its award. § 61.08(2), Fla. Stat. (1999). Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the final judgment.

In contrast, the former husband properly challenges the trial court’s imposition of a life insurance obligation to secure the alimony awarded to the former wife on the basis that the trial court failed to make the appropriate findings to support such an award, and no evidence was introduced on which an award could be based. § 61.08(3), Fla. Stat. (1999); Sobelman v. Sobelman, 641 So.2d 1153, 1154-55 (Fla.1989); Pinion v. Pinion, 818 So.2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Hedendal v. Hedendal, 695 So.2d 391, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we reverse this portion of the final judgment and remand for the entry of an amended final judgment deleting the insurance requirement.

Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

866 So. 2d 80, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 20141, 2003 WL 23094835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubinstein-v-rubinstein-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack