RAYMOND T. PARKS, III, APPELLANT,
v.
VIRGINIA PARKS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding rehabilitative alimony without determining the payor's ability to pay and in ordering life insurance without sufficient clarity.
Former husband appealed a final judgment of dissolution, challenging awards of rehabilitative alimony and life insurance security for child support. T…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Life Insurance Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is before us on appeal of the trial court’s amended final judgment of dissolution. Former husband raises two issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering former husband to pay former wife rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $100 per month for ten years or until she obtains a college degree; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering former husband to obtain or maintain a life insurance policy as security for future child support payments. We reverse as to both issues and remand for further proceedings.
First, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding former wife rehabilitative alimony without determining former husband’s ability to pay. See Kaylor v. Kaylor, 413 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Robinson v. Robinson, 366 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Here, it appears that former wife has a higher income and is in a better financial position than former husband. As the order stands, we cannot discern the legal basis for the trial court’s award of alimony to the former wife. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to make the aforementioned findings.
Second, we are unable to adequately review that portion of the order requiring former husband to obtain or maintain a life insurance policy as security for future child support. The trial court’s order does not state the amount of this obligation or whether former husband’s insurance policy through work is sufficient to meet the requirement. Therefore, we reverse and remand to the trial court to clarify this obligation, determine the sufficiency of former husband’s current work policy, and, if insufficient, determine whether former husband has the financial ability to secure an additional policy.
BOOTH, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Katowitz v. Solange Katowitz, 684 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…to the husband. Despite the wife’s demonstrated need for alimony, that award may not stand as presently ordered where, as here, her income greatly exceeds the husband’s income. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Parks v. Parks, 637 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Woodard v. Woodard, 477 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1336 (Fla.1986); Schwartz v. Schwartz, 450 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). In addition, the judgment does not provide that the court awarded alimon…
Authorities Cited
- Robinson v. Robinson, 366 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Kaylor v. Kaylor, 413 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)