Michelle C. Earl v. Roger A. Earl

MAY, J. The former wife appeals a final judgment of dissolution. She argues the trial court erred in awarding her durational, rather than permanent periodic alimony, and in failing to require the former husband to maintain life insurance. The former husband agrees that the court erred in failing to provide for life insurance in the final judgment of dissolution. We *436 agree and reverse on this issue only, finding no error in the court’s award of dura-tional alimony. The trial court orally pronounced: The [former] husband will get his life insurance policy with a value of eight thousand nine hundred and sixty-one dollars. He is to keep that life insurance policy in place, in the sum of one hundred thousand dollars — I know it’s two hundred thousand, but a hundred thousand should be dedicated, should he die, to do two things: Cover the balancing payment on the house and cover alimony, which I will go into in detail shortly. The former husband agrees that the final judgment failed to include this requirement. We therefore reverse and remand to allow the trial court to include the former husband’s requirement to maintain $100,000 in life insurance. Y.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 830 So.2d 212, 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“The written findings must be amended to conform with the oral pronouncement.”). We affirm on the alimony issue. Reversed and Remanded. KLINGENSMITH, J., and ROBY, WILLIAM L., Associate Judge, concur.