Case Name: Maria De Lourdes F. JONES, Appellant, v. Jesse JONES, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-07-25
Citations: 789 So. 2d 1234
Docket Number: No. 4D00-3796
Parties: Maria De Lourdes F. JONES, Appellant, v. Jesse JONES, Appellee.
Judges: POLEN, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 789
Pages: 1234–1235

Head Matter:
Maria De Lourdes F. JONES, Appellant, v. Jesse JONES, Appellee.
No. 4D00-3796.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 25, 2001.
Catherine Rafferty, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
No brief filed on behalf of appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On rehearing of the final judgment of dissolution, the trial court clarified the judgment. It limited the provision requiring the husband to provide life insurance so that it only provided security for alimony arrearages, relying on Keith v. Keith, 537 So.2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Keith held that a life insurance requirement may be imposed only to secure potential alimony arrearages. 537 So.2d at 139-40. However, Keith relied on Sobelman v. Sobelman, 516 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), which was reversed by the supreme court in Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So.2d 1153 (Fla.1989). The supreme court 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).
We therefore reverse and remanded for consideration of whether other appropriate circumstances required the husband to maintain life insurance.
POLEN, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.