E. LAMAR MCMATH, HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
FLOANNEL FUQUA MCMATH, WIFE, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1988-06-16
No. BQ-63
Shivers, J., Booth, J., Bower, N. Russell, Associate Judge
526 So. 2d 1027 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1988)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The court affirmed a dissolution judgment on asset division and alimony but certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether trial courts may require an alimony-paying spouse to maintain life insurance securing the alimony award.


Holding

A trial court's division of marital assets and alimony award do not constitute an abuse of discretion, and the question of whether trial courts may require life insurance to secure alimony is certified to the Florida Supreme Court.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court's discretionary decisions regarding division of marital assets and permanent periodic alimony awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be affirm…

Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the husband appealed challenging the trial court's division of marital assets, the amount of permanent period…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
SHIVERS, Judge.

SHIVERS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, in which the appellant/husband raises four issues: (1) that the trial court abused its discretion in the division of marital assets; (2) that the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of permanent periodic alimony; (3) that improper comments and questions made by the wife’s attorney during the final hearing influenced the trial court; and (4) that the trial court erred in requiring the husband to maintain a life insurance policy naming the wife as beneficiary.

We find the first two issues to be without merit, as the division of marital assets and the award of alimony do not constitute an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). The third issue is likewise without merit, as the record does not indicate that wife’s attorney’s questions and comments, even if we were to find them improper, had any effect on the trial court’s division of assets or determination of alimony- We affirm the fourth issue on the basis of our court’s recent decision in Fiveash v. Fiveash, 523 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). As we did in Fiveash, we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:

Does § 61.08(3) Florida Statutes (1985) authorize a trial court to require an alimony paying spouse to maintain a life insurance policy securing said alimony award, such that upon the death of the paying spouse the receiving spouse is only entitled to receive from the insurance the sum total of any existing alimony arrearages?

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, J., and BOWER, N. RUSSELL, Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw