WILLIAM J. PETERS, HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
GEROVANI BLACKSHEAR, F/K/A GEROVANI PETERS, WIFE, 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 divorce appeal, the former husband challenges the trial court's imputation of income, award of permanent alimony and attorney's fees, and requirement to maintain life insurance. The appellate court affirmed the income imputation and alimony award but partially reversed the life insurance requirement, finding the amounts excessive and unsupported by special circumstances.
The court affirmed the imputation of income and permanent alimony award as supported by competent, substantial evidence and not an abuse of discretion. The court vacated the $360,000 life insurance requirement for alimony due to lack of special circumstances and reversed the $40,000 requirement for child support as bearing no reasonable relationship to the monthly obligation, remanding for designation of an appropriate amount.
[1] A trial court's imputation of income and award of permanent, periodic alimony are reviewed for competent, substantial evidence and abuse of discretion, respectively.
[2] A trial court may order an obligor to maintain life insurance to secure alimony and child support awards.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Finding record support and no abuse of discretion in the imputation of income and alimony award, we affirm these rulings.”
States the appellate court's affirmance of the income imputation and permanent alimony award based on competent, substantial evidence and lack of abuse of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam J. Peters and Gerovani Blackshear were married for 16 years. The trial court imputed income to the husband, awarded permanent periodic alimony…
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 Imputation Of Income cases and more on FLexlaw
William J. Peters, the former husband, appeals those portions of the final judgment dissolving the parties’ 16-year marriage in which the trial court imputed income to him; awarded permanent, periodic alimony and attorney’s fees and costs to Gerovani Blackshear, the former wife; and ordered the husband to maintain a life insurance policy in the amount of $400,000.00 to secure the alimony and child support awards. Finding record support and no abuse of discretion in the imputation of income and alimony award, we affirm these rulings. Schmachtenberg v. Schmachtenberg, 34 So.3d 28, 36-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (stating the appellate court reviews the imputation of income for competent, substantial evidence); Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So.2d 672, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (noting the decision to award permanent, periodic alimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
Sections 61.08(3) & 61.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2009), allow the trial court to order the obligor to buy or maintain life insurance or otherwise protect the alimony and child support awards, respectively. Nevertheless, we vacate the requirement to maintain $360,000.00 in life insurance to secure alimony because the record reveals none of the “special circumstances” required by the case law. Mackoul v. Mackoul, 32 So.3d 741, 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Davidson v. Davidson, 882 So.2d 418, 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). We reverse the requirement to maintain $40,000.00 to secure the husband’s $739.69 monthly child support obligation and remand because the amount bears no reasonable relationship to the amount to be paid to support the parties’ child, who will turn 18 in August 2011. Mackoul, 32 So.3d at 742 (“[T]he trial court may not require excessive security.”); Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So.2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“The amount of insurance must be related to the extent of the obligation being secured.”).
The final judgment is AFFIRMED in part, STRICKEN in part, and REVERSED in part and REMANDED for the trial court to designate an amount of life insurance appropriate to secure and *1235protect the husband’s child support obligation.
WOLF, KAHN, and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eckert v. Eckert, 107 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…need and determine the availability and cost of such insurance. See Guerin v. DiRoma, 819 So. 2d 968, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Moreover, the amount required must bear a reasonable relationship to the child support awarded. See Peters v. Blackshear, 53 So. 3d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Here, the trial court made no findings of availability and cost of such insurance, nor of the amount required to secure the child support obligation. On this record, two million dollars far exceeds the amount of child supp…
-
McKnight v. McKnight, 252 So. 3d 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- MacKoul v. MacKoul, 32 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Schmachtenberg v. Schmachtenberg, 34 So. 3d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Davidson v. Davidson, 882 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)