GARY STUART DENNIS ISRAEL, APPELLANT,
v.
BETH A. ISRAEL, AND LYIS, INC. A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A MR. SANTORO: GWZ & B, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; GSDI, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION D/B/A SANTORO; NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF FLORIDA, N.A.; NATIONSBANK; HOMESIDE LENDING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES; JOSEPHTHAL & CO., INC. BEAR STEARNS SECURITIES CORP., ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; AND THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY, APPELLEES
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 a trial court cannot retroactively award child support when a temporary order is already in place, and must make findings on need and cost before requiring life insurance as security.
The trial court entered a final dissolution of marriage order that included a retroactive child support award and a requirement for the husband to mai…
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 Retroactive Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
MAY, J.
Amidst a myriad of issues raised in the appeal from a final dissolution of marriage, two require a reversal. We reverse the trial court’s order as it relates to the retroactive portion of the child support award, and the maintenance of life insurance. In all other respects, the trial court’s order is affirmed.
The first issue is the retroactive award of child support. While a trial court can order child support retroactively, it is error to do so when a temporary order for child support is already in place. See Kraus v. Kraus, 749 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). In this case, the trial court entered a temporary order for child support in the amount of $2,000. In the final order, the trial court ordered child support in the amount of $2,060 monthly and made the award retroactive to December, 1999, creating an instantaneous arrearage. To the extent that the additional monthly child support was increased $60 per month retroactively, it is reversed.
The second issue concerns that part of the trial court’s order which required the husband to maintain an existing life insurance policy to secure child support and alimony, in the face amount of ($3,500,-000.00). The trial court found that the husband had the financial ability to pay, but did so without any finding on the need to secure the payments, the amount of insurance needed to secure the payments, and the cost of such insurance. Clearly, the trial court has the discretion to require insurance as security. See Hedendal v. Hedendal, 695 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). However, the court must determine the proper amount necessary to accomplish that goal and the husband’s ability to pay based upon the cost of that insurance.
We reverse and remand the case to the trial court for proceedings .consistent with this opinion.
FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stephany M. Byers v. Byers, 910 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…where trial court failed to make the requisite findings to justify ordering husband to secure life insurance, where there was insufficient evidence presented regarding husband’s insurability or what the cost of insurance would be); Israel v. Israel, 824 So. 2d 953, 953-54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(re-quiring reversal and remand where trial court failed to make findings of the need to secure child support and alimony payments, the amount of insurance needed to secure those payments, and the cost of such insurance).…
-
Murphy v. Murphy, 948 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…igation retroactive to the date on which his child support obligation had been reduced by a prior temporary order. In support of his argument, the former husband cites to Rodgers v. Diederichsen, 820 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), Israel v. Israel, 824 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and Kraus v. Kraus, 749 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). However, these decisions were rendered prior to the enactment of section 61.14(11), Florida Statutes. This statute became effective on July 1, 2004, and specifically provide…
-
Dent v. Dent, 851 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…t compelling circumstances,” an order for temporary support is “final during its lifespan.” See Kraus v. Kraus, 749 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (citing with approval Warner v. Warner, 692 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)); see also Israel v. Israel, 824 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). As such, a circuit court that anticipates that its temporary support orders may need to be refined or adjusted in a final hearing should specify in the order that the provisions are without prejudice and may be modified by the c…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hedendal v. Hedendal, 695 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Kraus v. Kraus, 749 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)