DAVID AVANT LITHGOW, APPELLANT,
v.
ODESSA W. LITHGOW, APPELLEE
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.
Husband appealed a divorce decree challenging the trial court's orders regarding life insurance, retained jurisdiction language, and the award of the marital home to the wife. The appellate court affirmed the judgment with modification, limiting the life insurance requirement to only secure child support until the child reaches majority.
The trial court properly ordered maintenance of the life insurance policy as security for child support, but this requirement is modified to expire when the child reaches majority. The retained jurisdiction language is construed narrowly to apply only to issues adjudicated in the final judgment. The trial court did not err in awarding the marital home to the wife and child rather than ordering partition, as it was within the court's discretion to determine the best interests of the child.
[1] A trial court has the discretion to order a party to maintain a life insurance policy with a minor child as an irrevocable beneficiary as security for child support.
[2] A trial court's retention of jurisdiction in a dissolution judgment is limited to issues adjudicated by that judgment.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“it was within the trial court's discretion and authority to order the husband to maintain his existent term life insurance policy with the child as irrevocable beneficiary”
Establishes that trial courts have discretion to require life insurance as security for child support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Avant Lithgow and Odessa W. Lithgow divorced. The trial court ordered the husband to maintain a $100,000 term life insurance policy with their m…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Partition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by David Avant Li-thgow, respondent-husband, from certain portions of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Six points are presented on appeal, three of which will be discussed in this opinion.
The first point is that the court erred in requiring the husband to keep in effect a $100,000 life insurance policy with the minor child of the parties as irrevocable beneficiary. In our opinion, it was within the trial court’s discretion and authority to order the husband to maintain his existent term life insurance policy with the child as irrevocable beneficiary. See Bosem v. Bosem, 279 So. 2d 863, 865 (Fla.1973); Moore v. Moore, 311 So. 2d 152 (Fla.3rd DCA 1975). We do, however, modify this provision of the final judgment to limit the husband’s requirement to maintain the life insurance policy to the extent that it is security for the support of the child in the event of the father’s death, until such time as the child reaches his majority.
The husband’s second point is that the final judgment is unlimited and erroneously overbroad in that paragraph 13 provides that the court
“. . . retains jurisdiction of the parties in the subject matter of the cause for the purpose of enforcing all terms of the Final Judgment and to enter any further orders which are equitable, appropriate and just.”
Although the husband contends that the language “any further orders which are equitable, appropriate and just” is open-ended, we construe it to mean that such retention of jurisdiction relates only to those issues adjudicated by the final judgment. See Moore v. Moore, supra.
The final point to be discussed is that the court erred in failing to grant partition of the marital domicile, where both parties requested partition. The record reflects that although the wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage and the husband’s answer requested that the court partition the property of the parties, the matter of partition of the marital home was not raised by either party at the final hearing, or at any other time. In the final judgment, the court awarded possession of the marital home to the wife and minor child. Inasmuch as it is within the power and discretion of the trial court to determine from all the circumstances the best interests of the child, it was not error to award the use of the home, acquired as an estate by the entireties, to the parent having custody of the child. See Brown v. Brown, 123 So. 2d 298, 300 (Fla.3rd DCA 1960).
For the reasons stated, and on the authorities cited, we find that no reversible error has been shown by the appellant. Therefore, the final judgment is affirmed and modified to the extent that the provision requiring the husband to maintain life insurance should not extend beyond the time the child reaches majority.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…judge as to the state of the titles to the vehicles, he declined to correct the situation when it was brought to his attention. .See Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1980). . See Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra. . See also Lithgow v. Lithgow, 340 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), and cases cited. . Case 79-1412, in which Dr. Blum appealed a number of incidental post-trial rulings, has been abandoned.…
-
Eagan v. Eagan, 392 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…but only as security for his obligation to support children not in his custody. Bosem v. Bosem, 279 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1973); Higgins v. Higgins, 348 So. 2d 48 (Fla.1st DCA 1977); Eberly v. Eberly, 344 So. 2d 886 (Fla.4th DCA 1977); Lithgow v. Lithgow, 340 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Plant v. Plant, 320 So. 2d 455 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Simon v. Simon, 319 So. 2d 46 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). This basis for requiring the maintenance of life insurance is not applicable in this case because the four children of [*990] the p…
-
Kirkwood v. Kirkwood, 365 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…es for the benefit of appellant’s minor child Christine to require the maintenance thereof until she reaches majority. In all other respects, the aforementioned order is AFFIRMED. HOBSON, Acting C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur. . Lithgow v. Lithgow, 340 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Bosem v. Bosem, 279 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1973).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bosem v. Arie Lionel Bosem, 279 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1973)
- Brown v. Brown, 123 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Moore v. Moore, 311 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)