JAMAL J. GAZALEH, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTINE REEVES, 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.
Appellant Gazaleh appeals a paternity judgment requiring him to obtain life insurance to secure child support obligations. The court reversed this portion of the judgment because the trial court failed to make required findings regarding the necessity of the insurance policy.
The court held that before ordering a party to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy, a trial court must make findings regarding the necessity for the coverage, including the financial impact on the obligor and the cost and availability of the coverage. The trial court's failure to make such findings constituted an abuse of discretion.
[1] A trial court must make findings regarding the necessity of life insurance coverage before ordering a party to obtain and maintain such a policy to secure child support o…
[2] When determining the necessity of life insurance for child support, a trial court should consider the financial impact on the obligor and the cost and availability of the…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“before a trial court orders a party to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy, it is required to make findings with regard to the necessity for the coverage”
Establishes the mandatory requirement for trial court findings before ordering life insurance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered a Final Judgment of Paternity against Gazaleh that included an order requiring him to obtain and maintain a life insurance pol…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Jamal J. Gazaleh, appeals the trial court’s Final Judgment of Paternity (“Final Judgment”), raising three arguments on appeal, only one of which merits discussion. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy to secure his child support obligation because it failed to make the requisite findings. We agree and, therefore, reverse the Final Judgment as to this issue and remand. We otherwise affirm the Final Judgment.
As we have explained, before a trial court orders a party to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy, it is required to make findings with regard to the necessity for the coverage. See Schoditsch v. Schoditsch, 888 So. 2d 709, 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). In determining necessity, a trial court should consider the financial impact on the obligor and the cost and availability of the coverage. Id.; see also Smith v. Smith, 912 So. 2d 702, 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (noting that to require a life insurance policy, a trial court must make findings as to the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor’s ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant the policy); Guerin v. DiRoma, 819 So. 2d 968, 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (reversing the insurance protection requirement in the final judgment because the trial court did not make any finding with respect to the necessity for insurance protection or the obligor’s ability to pay for the life insurance policy). Appellee, Christine Reeves, concedes that the trial court did not make the requisite findings in this case.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the Final Judgment as to this issue and REMAND for further proceedings.
WOLF, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eroga v. Eroga, 166 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…make findings of fact regarding the necessity, cost,- and availability of life insurance to the former husband to secure payment of child support. We, therefore, reverse and remand as to that issue without further discussion. See Gazaleh v. Reeves, 940 So. 2d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Finally, the trial court improperly double-counted the 529 College Savings Plan valued at $2,181.82 by adding it to the husband’s assets as an independent asset when it was already included in another account awarded to th…
Authorities Cited
- Theiry Guerin v. DiROMA, 819 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Trent L. Smith v. Heidrun Smith, 912 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Schoditsch v. Schoditsch, 888 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)