BRUCE A. BAKER, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA W. BAKER, 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.
In this dissolution of marriage appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's awards of permanent alimony and child support, and the award of attorney's fees, but reversed the requirement that the husband maintain life insurance to secure those obligations. The court held that without special circumstances, a spouse cannot be compelled to maintain insurance for support obligations.
The court affirmed the awards of permanent alimony, child support, and attorney's fees as within the trial court's discretion. However, the court reversed the requirement that the husband maintain life insurance to secure support obligations, holding that absent special circumstances, such insurance cannot be required. The court also found no error in failing to consider tax ramifications where no evidence or argument regarding tax effects was presented at trial.
[1] A trial court may not require a spouse to maintain life insurance to secure support obligations absent special circumstances.
[2] A trial court must be presented with evidence or argument regarding tax consequences to consider them in the distribution of marital assets.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In the absence of special circumstances, a spouse cannot be required to maintain life insurance for the purposes of securing support obligations.”
Establishes the court's holding that reversing the insurance requirement was proper because special circumstances did not exist in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn eighteen-year marriage between parties in their early forties resulted in two minor children. Throughout the marriage, the husband was the primary …
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 Equitable Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, C.J.
The husband raises several challenges in this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He claims that the court failed to equally divide the marital assets by not considering the tax effect of the distribution of those assets; erred in awarding permanent alimony and the determination of child support; erred in requiring the husband to secure his alimony and child support obligations to the wife; and erred in its award of attorney’s fees to the wife. We affirm as to all issues except the requirement of insurance to secure the husband’s obligations.
This was an eighteen year marriage, and at the time of the divorce the parties were in their early forties. Two minor children were born during the marriage. Throughout the marriage the husband was the main fináneial provider, and the wife worked part-time as a nurse while taking care of the children and the household. The husband’s gross income exceeded $88,000, and the wife grossed approximately $24,000 per year. Although the husband testified that he had asked the wife to return to full-time work after the youngest child was born, the wife testified that her husband never complained about her reduced work schedule to take care of the children. Based upon the foregoing, the trial court awarded permanent alimony and child support to the wife, and we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making those awards. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1202-03 (Fla.1980).
We do, however, conclude that the court erred in requiring the husband to maintain life insurance to secure payment of child support and alimony. In the absence of special circumstances, a spouse cannot be required to maintain life insurance for the purposes of securing support obligations. See Moorehead v. Moorehead, 745 So. 2d 549, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). No special circumstances are present in this case. The husband is in good health, and the wife would not be left in dire economic straits upon the untimely death of the husband. See Richardson v. Richardson, 722 So. 2d 280, 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Sasnett v. Sasnett, 679 So. 2d 1265, 1268-69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
The husband complains that the trial court did not divide the marital assets equally because it failed to consider the greater tax consequences to him in the court’s distribution plan. However, at trial there was no evidence regarding the potential tax effects of the court’s distribution scheme. In order for the trial court to consider tax ramifications, the court must be made aware of them. Here, neither evidence nor argument alerted the court to any consequences. Therefore, no error occurred. See Hollinger v. Hollinger, 684 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Vaccaro v. Vaccaro, 677 So. 2d 918, 922 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Goodwin v. Goodwin, 640 So. 2d 173, 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Finally, we affirm the award of attorney’s fees as not an abuse of the broad discretion vested in the court. See Canakaris, 382 So. 2d at 1202-03. While the parties’ incomes are in parity after the addition of alimony and support, the wife still has to support herself and both children on that income, while the husband supports only himself.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
STONE, J., and GLICKSTEIN, HUGH S., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Layeni v. Kehinde A. Layeni, 843 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ances, a spouse cannot be required to maintain life insurance for the purposes of securing support obligations. See, e.g., Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 834, 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Pinion v. Pinion, 818 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Baker v. Baker, 763 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); McDaniel v. McDaniel, 653 So. 2d 1076, 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 477 So. 2d 2, 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) ("[T]here is nothing in the law that requires [a spouse] to maintain insurance unless special circumstanc…
-
Ruberg v. Ruberg, 858 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…d need to protect the alimony recipient’ ”) (citation omitted). Such special circumstances are present when the receiving spouse is faced with being plunged into “dire economic straits upon the untimely death of [the paying spouse].” Baker v. Baker, 763 So. 2d 493, 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (citing Richardson, 122, So. 2d at 281, and Sasnett, 679 So. 2d at 1268-69); see also Forgione v. Forgione, 845 So. 2d 968, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding that where wife “was of limited employability,” had few assets, and…
-
Forgione v. Forgione, 845 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…hese payments, and the cost of such insurance). Further, the estate is correct that “[i]n the absence of special circumstances, a spouse cannot be required to maintain life insurance for the purposes of securing support obligations.” Baker v. Baker, 763 So. 2d 493, 494-95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Substantial competent evidence in the record supports the conclusion that the [*970] wife had the need to protect the alimony award and that there was a special circumstance warranting that the husband maintain a policy…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Vaccaro v. Vaccaro, 677 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Sasnett v. Odell O. Sasnett, 679 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Richardson v. Leaman Richardson, 722 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Moorehead v. Moorehead, 745 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Hollinger v. Hollinger, 684 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Goodwin v. Goodwin, 640 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)