Moore v. Moore, 74--938
| Decision Date | 15 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--938,74--938 |
| Citation | 311 So.2d 152 |
| Parties | Arthur E. MOORE, Appellant, v. Dorothy M. MOORE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edward C. Vining, Jr. and R. M. MacArthur, Miami, for appellant.
Joseph F. Tomassi, Homestead, Robyn Greene, Miami, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
NATHAN Judge.
Arthur E. Moore appeals that portion of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage awarding alimony, child support and use of the home to the wife, Dorothy M. Moore; requiring the husband to maintain life insurance on his own life and medical and dental insurance for the children, make mortgage payments on the home and ordering the sale of the home in the future with equal division of the proceeds between husband and wife.
First, appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to specify whether the alimony awarded was rehabilitative or permanent. The record reveals that the trial judge probably intended the alimony to be permanent; however, we return this portion of the decree to the trial court with directions to clarify whether the alimony is permanent or rehabilitative. See Melin v. Melin, Fla.App.1972, 265 So.2d 414, 416.
Second, we find that it was error for the court to order that the home be sold and the proceeds be split upon the happening of the stated contingencies, because there was no prayer for partition by either of the parties. For this reason, the court was without authority to provide for partition of the home and division of the proceeds. Goodstein v. Goodstein, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 321. This portion of the final judgment hereby is ordered deleted. The decision of whether and when to partition the subject property must be left to the tenants in common. Valentine v. Valentine, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 885.
Third, the judgment is silent as to whether the husband's obligation to pay the mortgage payments was alimony, child support or otherwise, therefore we return this portion to the trial court with directions to specify the classification of the said payments. The nature of the payments will not only have definite tax consequences, but will also be a factor to be taken into consideration when, and if the property is partitioned in the future. See Rogoff v. Rogoff, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 456.
Fourth, the court was authorized to order the husband to maintain a $75,000 life insurance policy for the benefit of the minor children. Under these circumstances, the insurance on the husband's life provides security for the payment of maintenance and support awarded his minor children. Harloff v. Harloff, Fla.App.1973, 279 So.2d 91; Bosem v. Bosem, Fla.1973, 279 So.2d 863.
Fifth, it was proper for the court to order the husband to maintain medical and dental insurance on the children in addition to paying all of their medical and dental expenses. It can be considered as security for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leone v. Leone
...and dental expenses. It is well within the discretion of the trial court to order the husband to pay for these expenses. Moore v. Moore, 311 So.2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 324 So.2d 87 (Fla.1975); Schultz v. Schultz, 290 So.2d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA The wife next contends that the trial c......
-
Shufflebarger by Oktavec v. Shufflebarger
...(Fla. 5th DCA), pet. for rev. dismissed, 408 So.2d 1093 (Fla.1981); Eagan v. Eagan, 392 So.2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Moore v. Moore, 311 So.2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Even though a parent's duty of support ordinarily ceases when a child reaches majority, an exception exists where an adult......
-
Frechter v. Frechter, s. 88-1723
...for the purpose of child support or alimony. See Zediker v. Zediker, 398 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), citing Moore v. Moore, 311 So.2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA) (judgment dissolving marriage should specify whether husband's obligation to pay mortgage payments is alimony, child support or oth......
-
Eberly v. Eberly, 75--1714
...Bosem v. Bosem, 279 So.2d 863 (Fla.1973); Becker v. King, supra; Perkins v. Perkins, 310 So.2d 438 (Fla.4th DCA 1975); Moore v. Moore, 311 So.2d 152 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), cert. den., 324 So.2d 87 (Fla.1975). The earlier cases sustained such orders as proper to provide security for child suppor......