SONIA SURINDER WALIA, F/K/A SONIA THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH J. THOMAS, 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 erred in failing to equitably distribute two credit card debts and in requiring an excessive life insurance policy amount for child support.
In a divorce case, the trial court made credibility findings regarding the parties' willingness to lie. The final judgment addressed property distribu…
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 Child Support Obligation cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
The result in this divorce case largely turned on the credibility of the parties, which was the exclusive province of the trial judge. See, e.g., Adinolfe v. Adinolfe, 718 So. 2d 369, 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). One significant finding of the trial court was that both parties were willing “to lie whenever they felt it was in their best interest.” There is much support in the record for the judge’s conclusion. For example, the husband provided a financial statement to his bank in January 1999, that was significantly different from the financial affidavit he submitted to the court the same month.
We affirm the final judgment in all respects but two.
First, the trial court failed to equitably distribute two credit card debts in the name of the wife — $5,784 and $2,690.
Second, the final judgment requires the husband to maintain a life insurance policy for $1,000,000 naming the minor children as irrevocable beneficiaries “[a]s long as the father has an obligation to pay child support.” The husband’s monthly child support figure is $2,460. The minor children are nine and sixteen years old. The amount of insurance required to be maintained to protect against the loss of child support should be reduced to reflect the amount of child support due, “which appears to be substantially less than the $1,000,000.00” required by the judgment. Hedendal v. Hedendal, 695 So. 2d 391, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
The court determined that the husband should pay a portion of the wife’s attorney’s fees and costs. We do not pass on the propriety of that ruling since it is a fact-based decision better developed in the final judgment awarding attorney’s fees, which is not a part of this appeal.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
STONE and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weymouth v. Weymouth, 87 So. 3d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…$1,000,000 of life insurance during the marriage, the $1,000,000 requirement is excessive, given that the child support obligation will expire in 2015 and the alimony obligation can be secured with a lesser amount of insurance. See Walia v. Thomas, 805 So. 2d 1041, 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding that $1,000,000 was substantially more life insurance than necessary to secure the husband’s monthly child support of $2,460 for two children, age nine and sixteen). Furthermore, although the issue was not specific…
-
Lakin v. Lakin, 901 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…he husband was ordered to maintain. A court may not order a child support payer to maintain excessive insurance, when taking into account the total amount of the child support obligation that the insurance is designed to secure. See Walia v. Thomas, 805 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (noting that $1,000,000 was substantially more life insurance than necessary to secure the husband’s monthly child support of $2,460 for two children, age nine and sixteen). On remand, the trial court shall reduce the required am…
Authorities Cited
- Hedendal v. Hedendal, 695 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Jaynee Adinolfe v. Adinolfe, 718 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)