Tassone v. Tassone

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tassone v. Tassone

492 So. 2d 1086, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1348, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8289

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 13, 1986

DocketNo. 85-2513

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 492 So. 2d 1086 (Tassone v. Tassone) 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

Tassone v. Tassone, 492 So. 2d 1086, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1348, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8289 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Both parties have appealed from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage.

We find ample evidence in the record to uphold the final judgment’s requirement that the husband maintain a life insurance policy for five years, a period that corresponds to the time it will take the parties’ youngest child to reach the age of eighteen, as a provision intended to provide security for child support payments. See Bosem v. Bosem, 279 So.2d 863 (Fla.1973). We must remand, however, for entry of an amended final judgment requiring the husband to name and maintain the child, instead of the wife, as beneficiary of the policy. Putman v. Putman, 154 So.2d 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).

We find no merit in any of the other points raised by the parties and, accordingly, affirm the trial court in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOON-OVER and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Both parties have appealed from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage.

We find ample evidence in the record to uphold the final judgment’s requirement that the husband maintain a life insurance policy for five years, a period that corresponds to the time it will take the parties’ youngest child to reach the age of eighteen, as a provision intended to provide security for child support payments. See Bosem v. Bosem, 279 So.2d 863 (Fla.1973). We must remand, however, for entry of an amended final judgment requiring the husband to name and maintain the child, instead of the wife, as beneficiary of the policy. Putman v. Putman, 154 So.2d 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).

We find no merit in any of the other points raised by the parties and, accordingly, affirm the trial court in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOON-OVER and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

492 So. 2d 1086, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1348, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tassone-v-tassone-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack