Case Name: Robert T. KEARLEY, Appellant, v. Sharon S. KEARLEY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-09-08
Citations: 745 So. 2d 987
Docket Number: No. 97-05405
Parties: Robert T. KEARLEY, Appellant, v. Sharon S. KEARLEY, Appellee.
Judges: WHATLEY and GREEN, JJ., Concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 745
Pages: 987–991

Head Matter:
Robert T. KEARLEY, Appellant, v. Sharon S. KEARLEY, Appellee.
No. 97-05405.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Sept. 8, 1999.
Joryn Jenkins, Tampa, for Appellant.
Allyson Hughes of Allyson Hughes, P.A., New Port Richey, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Robert T. Kearley, challenges the final judgment of dissolution of marriage which awarded appellee, Sharon S. Kearley, $1400 a month as permanent periodic alimony. We reverse the alimony award because we find that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding alimony that exceeds the appellant's ability to pay. Furthermore, because a provision of the judgment of dissolution, which requires the appellant to carry life insurance "as security for his alimony obligation," is unclear as to the protection afforded, we reverse and remand with directions.
Appellant and appellee were married on September 1, 1967, and appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on April 28, 1995. The parties were separated during the last seven years of their marriage. On December 30, 1996, a final hearing was held on the dissolution petition.
Testimony revealed that during the parties' period of separation they entered into several support agreements. The last agreement regarding monthly support, executed in November 1993, provided that appellant was to pay the appellee $1000 per month for support. Regardless of the $1000 monthly support agreement, both parties stipulated that the appellee's actual maintenance would be fixed at $900. The $1000 amount was arrived at to allow ap-pellee the ability to satisfy loan requirements with a mortgage lender for the purchase of a separate residence for herself.
At the time of the hearing in December 1996, according to the financial affidavit, appellant's gross monthly income was $3,892.95. Appellee's gross monthly income was $1,717.25, which included $900 a month provided by appellant. The trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which, among other things, concluded that appellant had the ability to pay $1400 a month in permanent periodic support. Furthermore, the final judgment indicated that appellant was to maintain $93,000 in life insurance with ap-pellee as the beneficiary "as security for the permanent periodic alimony." Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court's final judgment.
We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the ap-pellee $1400 per month in alimony. According to the financial affidavit, appellant's monthly net income is $3,380.41. After deducting his average monthly expenses from his net income, including the $1400 alimony, appellant is left with a deficiency of $818.59 per month. According to appellee's financial affidavit, filed at the time of the hearing, the addition of $1400 to appellee's net income will increase her monthly net income to $2,217.25. Appellee stated her monthly obligations at $2,629.19, thus asserting a deficiency of $411.94 per month. However, appellee admitted she was able to remain current on her obligations during separation.
It appears that both parties remain in a situation where their income cannot cover expenses. Nonetheless, placing appellant in a greater income deficiency will not solve either party's financial difficulties. See Gerard v. Gerard, 656 So.2d 186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Cook v. Cook, 574 So.2d 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Instead, the face amount of the parties' last support agreement during separation is closer to an appropriate award.
Additionally, sufficient findings are contained in the final judgment to justify a requirement for life insurance as alimony security. However, the final judgment merely states that "the husband shall provide life insurance on his life in the amount of $93,000 as security for his alimony obligations." It cannot be ascertained whether the entire policy proceeds would be paid over to the appellee in the event of appellant's death or only so much as to compensate her for alimony arrearage. Either arrangement may be appropriate, but those terms must be certain. See § 61.08(3), Fla. Stat. (1997). See also Cifrian v. Cifrian, 715 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
We reverse the trial court's award of alimony to appellee in the amount of $1400 a month and direct the trial court to reconsider an award of periodic permanent alimony in accord with the parties' last agreement. We also reverse the trial court's award regarding appellant's life insurance policy with directions that, upon remand, the trial court should specify as to how the life insurance proceeds are to be paid. We affirm the trial court's final judgment in all other aspects.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
WHATLEY and GREEN, JJ., Concur.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., Concurs specially with opinion in which WHATLEY, J., Concurs.
. Monthly support began at $650 per month and was raised to $800 per month and then finally to $900 per month.