Bassett v. Bassett, s. 90-122
| Decision Date | 11 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | 90-1258,Nos. 90-122,s. 90-122 |
| Citation | 571 So.2d 532 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D3021 Ray S. BASSETT, Appellant, v. Juanita D. BASSETT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1991.
Joseph C. Jacobs and Margaret A. McCall of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Ervin, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Jerome M. Novey and Kristin Adamson of Novey & Mendelson, Tallahassee, for appellee.
In this consolidated appeal, the appellant appeals a final judgment and an order on rehearing in a modification proceeding. We affirm.
The final judgment of modification awards the former wife an increase in permanent alimony from $300.00 a month to $1,200.00 a month and orders the husband to carry a life insurance policy to secure the alimony. The husband filed a motion for rehearing contending, among other things, that the trial court erred in finding that the former wife is in need of security for her permanent alimony and that the former husband should carry a life insurance policy to secure that alimony. The court granted the motion for rehearing. In the order on rehearing, the court eliminated the paragraph of the final judgment that ordered the husband to carry the life insurance policy, substituting in its place, however, a provision reserving jurisdiction to reconsider the former wife's request concerning the life insurance policy at a later date, after further investigation by counsel for the parties relative to the husband's insurability, premium costs, and other matters relevant to the availability of such insurance.
We affirm the award of alimony, finding that the evidence of the wife's bad health and increased need, and the husband's increased ability to pay, supports the trial court's award. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 536 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); and Laurenzo v. Laurenzo, 522 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Our affirmance is based upon the record before us and the argument of the parties in their briefs, without consideration of the additional financial burden on the husband that would result should the court subsequently order the husband to provide life insurance. Our affirmance is therefore without prejudice to the right of the parties to seek review of any order entered by the trial court pursuant to its reservation of jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cleary v. Cleary
...the payee spouse must demonstrate a material or substantial change of circumstances since the entry of the judgment. Bassett v. Bassett, 571 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 536 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Laurenzo v. Laurenzo, 522 So.2d 1065 (Fla.1988). In Laurenzo,......
-
Lorman v. Lorman
...shall also have the option of reserving jurisdiction on this issue if it is not ripe for immediate resolution. See Bassett v. Bassett, 571 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The trial court further erred by requiring the former husband to assume total responsibility for the parties' federal inc......