SUSAN SCHODITSCH, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
RICHARD SCHODITSCH, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 trial court erred by not apportioning health insurance costs and by failing to make findings on the necessity of life insurance.
Following a dissolution of marriage, the trial court ordered one party to pay the entire cost of health insurance for the minor child and to obtain a …
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 Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
HAWKES, J.
In this appeal and cross-appeal following a final order of dissolution of marriage, six issues are raised. Concluding only two have merit, we affirm the remaining issues on appeal, and the sole issue on cross-appeal, without discussion.
In its final order, the trial court ordered Appellant to pay the entire cost of the health' insurance for the parties’ minor child, and required her to obtain a life insurance policy for as long as she is required to pay child support. However, the court is required by statute to apportion the cost of the insurance between the parties on a percentage basis. See § 61.13(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003); Artuso v. Dick, 843 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Forrest v. Ron, 821 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
Additionally, before ordering a party to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy, the court is required to make findings regarding the necessity for such coverage. See § 61.08(3), Fla. Stat. (2003); Guerin v. DiRoma, 819 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Cissel v. Cissel, 845 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In determining such necessity, the trial court should consider the cost and availability of the insurance and the financial impact on the obligor. See Guerin, 819 So. 2d at 970; Cissel, 845 So. 2d at 995.
The final order is REVERSED as to these two issues only, and the case REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ERVIN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Winney v. Jayme Carol Winney, 979 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). This Court has held that a trial court must make findings to address specific issues when awarding alimony, ordering a party to carry life insurance, and devising an equitable distribution scheme. Schoditsch v. Schoditsch, 888 So. 2d 709, 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (addressing life insurance as security); Shoffner, 744 So. 2d at 1158 (addressing alimony and equitable distribution). The requirement that trial courts make certain findings is driven by specific statutory mandates as well…
-
Norman v. Norman, 939 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…daughter as beneficiaries, without making specific findings as to the availability and cost of the policies and the impact of such cost on the husband. See, e.g., Stalnaker v. Stalnaker, 892 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Schoditsch v. Schoditsch, 888 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Bogin v. Bogin, 780 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Moreover, because “the surrender value of any existing life insurance policy would be an asset for purposes of equitable distribution and any requirement to pay premiums should…
-
Duke v. Duke, 211 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…circumstances that warrant the requirement for security of the obligation.” Foster v. Foster, 83 So. 3d 747, 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). A trial court’s failure to make these required findings is reversible error. Id. (citing Schoditsch v. Schoditsch, 888 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). Thus, although there is no transcript in the record, we will reverse where the trial court fails to make factual findings in a final judgment regarding the requirement on a party to maintain life insurance. For example, in Pack…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Theiry Guerin v. DiROMA, 819 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Artuso v. Dick, 843 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Caryn Heidi Forrest v. Ami RON, 821 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Otelia T. Cissel v. Cissel, 845 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)