Merkin v. Merkin, 2D00-4914.
| Decision Date | 18 January 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D00-4914.,2D00-4914. |
| Citation | 804 So.2d 595 |
| Parties | Don MERKIN, Appellant, v. Carol MERKIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Eloise Taylor, Port Richey, for Appellant.
Thomas J. Zandecki, New Port Richey, for Appellee.
Don Merkin appeals a final judgment dissolving his thirty-two-year marriage to Carol Merkin. He challenges several aspects of the final judgment including the requirement that he maintain certain life insurance policies, the award of permanent alimony in favor of the wife, the omission of termination language in the alimony order, the distribution of liabilities between himself and the wife, and the trial court's express refusal to declare the parties' eldest adult son to be a dependent person. The husband also asserts that it was error for the trial court to delegate to the parties the responsibility for preparing proposed final judgments of dissolution. Based upon the evidence presented, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in distributing the liabilities and we affirm that point without comment. We otherwise affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings as more fully explained below.
The parties were married in July 1967 and their marriage was dissolved in October 1999. At the time of the dissolution, both parties were fifty-three years of age. They had two children both of whom had reached the age of majority by the time of the dissolution. The older of the two children, who was living with the father, had some medical problems and was receiving social security disability payments, but he had not previously been declared to be legally dependent and was attending college at the time of the final hearing. The husband was a medical doctor and the wife was a licensed practical nurse. The husband's income seemed to fluctuate, but evidence was presented which reflected that he grossed in excess of $11,000 per month. The wife, who had recently relocated to another state, was earning $8.00 per hour working out-of-field in a temporary position. She had grossed $914 in the month preceding the final hearing and was pursuing training to become a registered nurse.
During the pendency of the dissolution, the wife sought and was granted temporary support in the amount of $3500 per month. The husband failed to satisfy the temporary support obligation and was found to be in arrears prior to the final hearing.
At the final hearing, the husband sought to have the court determine the parties' eldest son to be a dependent person and requested child support from the wife. The trial court expressly declined to make such a finding and did not order child support. The wife sought permanent alimony which the trial court ordered in the amount of $4000 per month. The wife also requested that the husband be ordered to maintain life insurance policies with the parties' eldest child and herself as named beneficiaries. The trial court granted the wife's request.
The allotted time for the final hearing had elapsed before the attorneys had concluded, and they chose not to reset another hearing for closing arguments and the pronouncement of findings. Thus, the trial court did not orally pronounce findings of fact or announce its decision, and instead directed the attorneys to present proposed final judgments. The trial court explained that it would choose from the proposed final judgments or prepare one of its own. The attorneys each agreed, on behalf of their clients, that the procedure was acceptable. The trial court adopted a modified version of the proposed final judgment presented by the wife's counsel.
The husband asserts that the trial court erred in not finding the parties' eldest son to be a dependent person. However, the adult son was not a party to the action and the trial court did not err in refusing to make a declaration that the parties' son was dependent in the context of this dissolution of marriage proceeding. While we affirm the trial court on this point, we note that the judgment is not res judicata as to any right the son might have to independently seek such a determination.
The husband also contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to maintain two term life insurance policies with the wife and the parties' eldest adult son as named beneficiaries. The trial court erred by ordering the husband to maintain a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perlow v. Berg-Perlow
...trial judge to request that both sides present a proposed final judgment at the conclusion of the case. See, e.g., Merkin v. Merkin, 804 So.2d 595, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ("It is not uncommon for a trial court to instruct the attorneys to prepare proposed final judgments."); Flint v. Fortso......
- Sinclair v. Sinclair
-
Sikora v. Sikora
...due at the time of the former husband's death. See Zangari v. Cunningham, 839 So.2d 918, 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ; Merkin v. Merkin, 804 So.2d 595, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Consequently, because the trial court failed to include the required findings, we reverse the life insurance requirement......
-
Rowland v. Rowland, No. 2D02-2391
...insurance necessary to protect the Wife's and the children's interests and to provide the terms of distribution. See Merkin v. Merkin, 804 So.2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). On cross-appeal, the Wife argues that the amount of the court's award of permanent alimony was in error. Because we are re......
-
Alimony and support
...applicable).] CASES The following cases were decided before the 2010 statutory amendments: • Physical incapacity: Merkin v. Merkin, 804 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (trial court did not err in refusing to make declaration that parties’ adult son who had medical problems, was receiving Soci......
-
Final judgment; rehearing; motions related to judgment
...courts, it is not uncommon for a trial court to instruct the parties’ attorneys to prepare proposed final judgments [ Merkin v. Merkin , 804 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)(explaining that trial court could delegate responsibility to prepare proposed final judgment of dissolution to parties, ......
-
An update on Florida alimony case law: are alimony guidelines a part of our future? .
...$6-7 per Burrill hour; 701 So. 2d 354 (potential (Fla. 1st DCA to earn 1997) $18-20,000 per year) Merkin v. Merkin 32 years 53 $914 per 804 So. 2d 595 month (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) Blanchard v. over 30 Blanchard years 793 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) Cochran v. Cochran 819 So 2d 863 (Fla. 3d DC......
-
An update on Florida alimony case law: are alimony guidelines a part of our future? .
...v. Tarkow $16,750 $1,000 26 years N/A 805 So. 2d 854 per (imputed) (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) month Merkin v. Merkin $11,000 $914 32 years N/A 804 So. 2d 595 per per (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) month month Griffing v. Griffing $3,335 $708 19 years $911 722 So. 2d 979 per per per (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) month mo......