Lithgow v. Lithgow, 76--14
| Decision Date | 04 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--14,76--14 |
| Parties | David Avant LITHGOW, Appellant, v. Odessa W. LITHGOW, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edward C. Vining, Jr., and Richard A. Burt, Miami, for appellant.
Joan A. Berk, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
This is an appeal by David Avant Lithgow, 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 openended, 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eagan v. Eagan
...(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 requirin......
-
Blum v. Blum, s. 79-507
...to his attention.10 See Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949 (Fla.1980).11 See Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra.12 See also Lithgow v. Lithgow, 340 So.2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), and cases cited.13 Case 79-1412, in which Dr. Blum appealed a number of incidental post-trial rulings, has been ...
-
Hall v. Hall, 88-1987
...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 Wherefore the final judgme......
-
Kirkwood v. Kirkwood, 78-559
...majority. In all other respects, the aforementioned order is AFFIRMED. HOBSON, Acting C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur. 1 Lithgow v. Lithgow, 340 So.2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Bosem v. Bosem, 279 So.2d 863 ...