Superdock v. Superdock

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Superdock v. Superdock

493 So. 2d 89, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1903, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9544

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 3, 1986

DocketNo. 85-2448

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 493 So. 2d 89 (Superdock v. Superdock) 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

Superdock v. Superdock, 493 So. 2d 89, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1903, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9544 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment of dissolution is affirmed in all respects except as to the provision of paragraph 16 that the wife be designated as beneficiary of the husband’s life insurance. See Sobelman v. Sobelman, 490 So.2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); McClung v. McClung, 465 So.2d 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Stith v. Stith, 384 So.2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

We remand to the trial court to strike that portion of paragraph 16 applicable to the wife or to make findings of fact and amend the final judgment so that the life insurance award meets the requirements of section 61.08(3), Florida Statutes (1985) and the above cases.

[90]*90AFFIRMED, IN PART, REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

DOWNEY, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.¹

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