Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

545 So. 2d 837

545 So.2d 837

14 Fla.L.Weekly 263

Shimek v. Shimek

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided June 1, 1989

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1989-06-01

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 2001

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“allows broader use of life insurance policies than just to compensate for existing alimony arrearages.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 722 So. 2d 280 - Richardson v. Richardson

Relies on Sobelman v. Sobelman · 532 So. 2d 686 - Shimek v. Shimek

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-06-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

OVERTON, Justice.

¶1We have for review Shimek v. Shimek, 532 So.2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), in which the district court, upon the former husband’s petition for rehearing, certified the following question:

Does § 61.08(3), Florida Statutes (1985) authorize a trial court to require an alimony paying spouse to maintain a life insurance policy securing said alimony award, such that upon the death of the paying spouse the receiving spouse is only entitled to receive from the insurance the sum total of any existing alimony arrearages?

¶2Id. at 687. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.

¶3We answer this question in the negative in accordance with our recent decision in Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So.2d 1153 (Fla.1989), in which we concluded that section 61.08(3) allows broader use of life insurance policies than just to compensate for existing alimony arrearages. In considering a similar factual situation in Sobel-man, we specifically held that section 61.-08(3) “permits the trial court to order an obligated spouse, as an integral part of the equitable distribution and support scheme, to purchase life insurance or other security either to satisfy arrearages or to otherwise protect the receiving spouse in appropriate circumstances.” .Id. at 1154-55 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative and approve the decision of the district court.

¶4It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and McDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
/545/so2d/837 · .json · Public domain