THOMAS G. HIGGINS, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNE ELIZABETH HIGGINS, 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.
Trial court erred in requiring appellant to maintain a $75,000 life insurance policy beyond the $15,000 government policy already adequate to secure child support obligations.
A trial court may require a divorced parent to maintain life insurance as security for support payments but may not order establishment of an insurance estate exceeding the amount needed to secure those obligations.
[1] A trial court may require a divorced parent to maintain life insurance as security for support obligations but may not require insurance in excess of the amount necessary…
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“a trial court may require a divorced father to maintain insurance on his life as security for the payments of maintenance and support, but may not order him to establish an insurance estate for the child”
Court distinguishing permissible insurance requirements from impermissible insurance estate creation
Appellant was required to pay $250 per month for child support until the child reached age 18, totaling $12,000 over four years. Appellant already mai…
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 Child Support Obligation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Although appellant challenges several aspects of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage the only provision requiring discussion is the requirement that appellant maintain a $75,000 life insurance policy in addition to a $15,000 government life insurance policy. In the case of Riley v. Riley, 131 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961), we held that a trial court may require a divorced father to maintain insurance on his life as security for the payments of maintenance and support, but may not order him to establish an insurance estate for the child. Sub judice, appellant was required to pay by the terms of the final judgment $250 a month for the parties’ remaining minor child. At the end of four years, when the child reaches the age of 18, appellant will have been obligated to pay a total of $12,-000, which is more than adequately secured by the $15,000 government insurance policy. Thus, the trial court erred in ordering appellant to maintain the $75,000 Prudential life insurance policy. In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.
Appellee has moved for attorney’s fees for services rendered by her attorney on appeal, but that motion is denied.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
BOYER, Chief Judge, McCORD, J., and DREW, E. HARRIS (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eagan v. Eagan, 392 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…A father can be required to maintain life insurance on his own life for the benefit of his minor children 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 requiri…
-
Pyle v. Pyle, 375 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…ding his agreement to pay for an undergraduate education at a state university for each of them, will total approximately one-third of the present value of the life insurance. The case is remanded for modification consistent with Higgins v. Higgins, 348 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The judgment is otherwise affirmed. ERVIN, Acting C. J., and BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.…
-
Hall v. Hall, 561 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…e the life insurance as agreed by the parties. Bosem v. Bosem, 279 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1973); Longo v. Longo, 533 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), rev. dism. 542 So. 2d 989 (Fla.1989); Egan v. Egan, 392 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); 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). Wherefore the f…
Authorities Cited
- Riley v. Riley, 131 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)