JACK R. KOTLARZ, APPELLANT,
v.
WENDY W. KOTLARZ, 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 Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment on all issues except the requirement that the former husband maintain life insurance to secure alimony and child support obligations. The court reversed the life insurance requirement because the trial court failed to make specific evidentiary findings required by statute.
While trial courts are authorized by Florida Statutes to require life insurance policies to secure alimony and child support awards, such a requirement must be supported by specific evidentiary findings regarding insurance availability and cost, obligor's ability to pay, and special circumstances. The trial court's final judgment contained no such findings, so the life insurance requirement was reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
[1] A trial court is authorized to require a party ordered to pay alimony and child support to purchase or maintain a life insurance policy to secure those awards.
[2] To support a life insurance requirement for alimony and child support, a trial court must make specific evidentiary findings regarding the availability and cost of insura…
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 order to support the life insurance requirement, the trial court must make specific evidentiary findings as to the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor's ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant such security.”
Establishes the mandatory evidentiary foundation required for imposing a life insurance requirement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJack Kotlarz was ordered by the trial court to maintain a life insurance policy to secure his alimony and child support obligations to his former wife…
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.
We affirm all issues in this appeal from a final judgment in a dissolution of marriage action, except for the requirement that the former husband maintain a life insurance policy to secure alimony and child support obligations.
The trial court is authorized by sections 61.08(3) and 61.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes, to require a party who is ordered to pay alimony and child support to purchase or maintain a life insurance policy to secure those awards. In order to support the life insurance requirement, the trial court must make specific evidentiary findings as to the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor’s ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant such security. Plichta v. Plichta, 899 So.2d 1283, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So.2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). “Such special circumstances include a spouse potentially left in dire financial straits after the death of the obligor spouse due to age, ill health and/or lack of employment skills, obligor spouse in poor health, minors living at home, supported spouse with limited earning capacity, obligor spouse in arrears on support obligations, and cases where the obligor spouse agreed on the record to secure an award with a life insurance policy.” Richardson v. Richardson, 900 So.2d 656, 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Alpha v. Alpha , 885 So.2d 1023, 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)). “The amount of insurance must be related to the extent of the obligation being secured.” Burnham, 884 So.2d at 392 (citing Zangan v. Cunningham, 839 So.2d 918, 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)). Here, the final judgment includes no specific findings supporting the life insurance requirement; therefore, we reverse as to the life insurance issue and remand for reconsideration.
HAWKES, C.J., WOLF and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Weymouth v. Weymouth, 87 So. 3d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…nstrated need to protect the alimony recipient.” Privett v. Privett, 535 So. 2d 663, 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The amount of life insurance required by the trial court must be related to the extent of the obligation being secured. Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). We reverse as to the requirement that the husband maintain $1,000,000 in life insurance and remand for the trial court to reconsider the amount. While the husband had historically maintained $1,000,000 of life insurance du…
-
Yougraj Beharry v. Drake, 52 So. 3d 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…erwise secure the child support award with any other assets which may be suitable for that purpose. However, the amount of life insurance required by the trial court must be related to the extent of the obligation being secured. Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So. 2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)). The father argues that the amount of the $100,000.00 life insurance policy ordered by the trial court was in excess of the amount necessary to secure his…
-
Foster v. Foster, 83 So. 3d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…r, the trial court must make specific evidentiary findings regarding the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor’s ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant the requirement for security of the obligation. Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Plichta v. Plichta, 899 So. 2d 1283, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So. 2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)). The failure to make the necessary findings constitutes reversible error. See Schoditsch v. Sc…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 899 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Stephen D. Plichta, Jr., M.D. v. Plichta, 899 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Alpha v. Alpha, 885 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Richardson v. Richardson, 900 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Jacobs v. State, 839 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Zangari v. Cunningham, 839 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)