Blass v. Blass, s. 74--1620

• Decision Date: 22 July 1975
• Docket Number: Nos. 74--1620,74--1623,s. 74--1620
• Citation: 316 So.2d 308
• Parties: Stephen BLASS, Appellant, v. Susan C. BLASS, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 308

316 So.2d 308

Stephen BLASS, Appellant, v. Susan C. BLASS, Appellee.

Nos. 74--1620, 74--1623.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 22, 1975.

Lapidus & Hollander and Robert J. Schaffer, Miami, for appellant.

Tobias Simon and Elizabeth du Fresne, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, respondent, ex-husband, and petitioner, ex-wife, seek review of certain provisions of a dissolution of marriage judgment and order awarding attorney's fees.

On June 13, 1974 the chancellor entered a final judgment dissolving the bonds of marriage between the petitioner, Susan Blass, and the respondent, Stephen Blass. Custody of the two minor children was awarded to Stephen until the end of the 1974--1975 school year along with exclusive occupancy of the marital residence for one year. Susan was awarded rehabilitative alimony of $1,500 per month for five years. Stephen was ordered to provide Susan with a major medical insurance policy for a period of five years and to establish her for five years as the irrevocable beneficiary of two life insurance policies. After an evidentiary hearing, the chancellor entered a post decretal order directing Stephen to pay Susan's attorney $8,000 of the $9,500 fee awarded to him. Stephen Blass appeals therefrom and Susan Blass cross-appeals therefrom.

Appellant, Stephen Blass, first claims the chancellor erred in ordering him to establish Susan as the irrevocable beneficiary of his two life insurance policies. We agree.

This provision was tantamount to an award of alimony from and after the death of appellant should he die within the five year period and, therefore, improper and unauthorized. See Wilbur v. Wilbur, Fla.App.1974, 299 So.2d 99. Thus, we hereby strike this provision from the judgment.

Appellant next argues that the chancellor committed error in directing him to provide Susan for a period of five years with a major medical insurance policy. This point lacks merit.

We find no error in the provision for medical insurance as the chancellor appropriately could have required appellant to pay major medical expenses and the furnishing of an insurance policy to cover the costs could be a less expensive alternative. See Lyons v. Lyons, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 137.

We now turned our consideration to the cross-appeal of Susan Blass who first contends that the chancellor erred in failing to grant her permanent custody of the minor children.

We conclude that the award of custody of the children to the father, Stephen Blass, until the end of the current 1974--1975 school year, which already has terminated, simply was a grant of temporary custody....