Seum v. Seum

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Seum v. Seum

384 So. 2d 223, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 23557

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 27, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1129

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 384 So. 2d 223 (Seum v. Seum) 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

Seum v. Seum, 384 So. 2d 223, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 23557 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the trial proceedings below, nor abuse of discretion in the challenged portions of the final judgment of dissolution which (a) awarded the wife the husband’s interest in the marital home as lump-sum alimony, Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Hague v. Hague, 382 So.2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and cases cited; (b) fixed the amount of permanent periodic alimony, Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976) and (c) provided for the payment of Ms. Seum’s attorney’s fees by Mr. Seum. Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra; Creel v. Creel, 378 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). There are, however, no special circumstances presented in the record which justify the requirement that she be named the beneficiary of his life insurance policies. See Watterson v. Watterson, 353 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Blass v. Blass, 316 So.2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Upon remand, this provision shall be stricken from the judgment, which is otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the trial proceedings below, nor abuse of discretion in the challenged portions of the final judgment of dissolution which (a) awarded the wife the husband’s interest in the marital home as lump-sum alimony, Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Hague v. Hague, 382 So.2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and cases cited; (b) fixed the amount of permanent periodic alimony, Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976) and (c) provided for the payment of Ms. Seum’s attorney’s fees by Mr. Seum. Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra; Creel v. Creel, 378 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). There are, however, no special circumstances presented in the record which justify the requirement that she be named the beneficiary of his life insurance policies. See Watterson v. Watterson, 353 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Blass v. Blass, 316 So.2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Upon remand, this provision shall be stricken from the judgment, which is otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

384 So. 2d 223, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 23557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seum-v-seum-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack