JAMES FOSTER, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
CYNTHIA L. FOSTER, 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.
James Foster appeals a final judgment dissolving his marriage to Cynthia Foster. The appellate court affirmed most of the judgment but reversed the trial court's orders requiring Foster to maintain life insurance naming his ex-wife as beneficiary and to pay her attorney's fees, finding the trial court failed to make necessary factual findings and abused its discretion.
The court reversed the life insurance requirement because the trial court failed to make specific evidentiary findings regarding availability and cost of insurance, the obligor's ability to pay, and special circumstances warranting the security requirement. The court also reversed the attorney's fees award because when a trial court places parties in relatively equal financial circumstances after dissolution, it should not award attorney's fees.
[1] A court may require a party to maintain life insurance to secure alimony or child support obligations, but must make specific evidentiary findings regarding insurance ava…
[2] The amount of life insurance required to secure an alimony or child support obligation must be related to the extent of the obligation being secured.
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 requirement for life insurance, however, 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.”
Establishes the legal standard for requiring life insurance to secure alimony obligations and identifies what findings trial courts must make.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Foster and Cynthia Foster were parties to a marriage dissolution proceeding. The trial court issued a final judgment requiring the former husban…
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 Attorney'S Fees Award Criteria cases and more on FLexlaw
The Former Husband, James Foster, appeals a final judgment dissolving his marriage to the Former Wife, Cynthia Foster, and resolving certain financial issues between the parties. We affirm in all respects except for the disposition of the matters of life insurance on the life of the Former Husband, and the award of attorney’s fees.
The trial court ordered the Former Husband in the amended final judgment to “continue to carry the life insurance policy he now has through his employer and shall retain the [Former Wife] as beneficiary to ensure the payment of his alimony obligation should he meet an untimely demise.” A court clearly has the authority pursuant to sections 61.08(3) and 61.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), to protect an award of alimony by requiring a party who is ordered to pay alimony or child support to purchase and maintain a life insurance policy to secure those obligations. In order to support the requirement for life insurance, however, 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. Schoditsch, 888 So.2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).
Moreover, “[t]he amount of insurance must be related to the extent of the *749obligation being secured.” See Burnham, 884 So.2d at 392 (citing Zangari v. Cunningham, 839 So.2d 918, 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)). It is error, for example, for a trial court to require the obligated spouse to purchase a life insurance policy in an amount that exceeds his support obligation. See Beharry v. Drake, 52 So.3d 790, 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Accordingly, the trial court must specify whether the insurance is security for unpaid support obligations, in which case only a portion of the proceeds are to be distributed to the beneficiaries upon the spouse’s death to minimize economic harm to the family. See Smith v. Smith, 912 So.2d 702, 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
The trial court in the present case did not make the required findings of fact necessary to underpin the life insurance requirement. We, accordingly, reverse this portion of the judgment and remand for rendition of the necessary findings.
The Former Husband also argues that he was erroneously ordered to pay the Former Wife’s attorney’s fees. We agree that the trial court abused its discretion in this regard, as well.
When considering the fee issue, a trial court must evaluate the financial need of the requesting party and the financial ability of the other party to pay when determining whether or not to award attorney’s fees. Price v. Price, 951 So.2d 55, 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). If the trial court places the parties in relatively equal financial circumstances after the dissolution, then it should not award attorney’s fees. Matajek v. Skowronska, 927 So.2d 981, 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Derrevere v. Derrevere, 899 So.2d 1152, 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). That is to say, one party should not have to substantially deplete his or her overall equitable distribution, or cause the inequitable diminution of an alimony award in order to pay attorney’s fees and costs for the other party. See Conlan v. Conlan, 43 So.3d 931, 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); see also Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1205 (Fla.1980).
Here, the trial court put the parties into basically equal financial positions. Based on that parity and on the other factors bearing on this determination, we conclude that the court erred in ordering the Former Husband to pay the Former Wife’s attorney’s fees.
Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further consideration by the trial court consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Rami Zvida v. Sigalit Zvida, 103 So. 3d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…er, 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.” Foster v. Foster, 83 So. 3d 747, 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). “The failure to make the necessary findings” to support an order requiring the maintenance of life insurance to secure the payment of alimony or child support “constitutes reversible error.” Id. In the present case, the tr…
-
Duke v. Duke, 211 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…solution order, it 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.” 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 wh…
-
Brennan v. Brennan, 122 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…uirement of maintaining life insurance must be reversed for the trial court to make the required findings. Id. We also remind the trial court that the amount of life insurance required must not exceed [*927] the support obligation. Foster v. Foster, 83 So. 3d 747, 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Former Wife’s Attorney’s Fees and Costs as of Final Hearing We reverse on this issue because where equitable distribution is reversed on appeal, it may be appropriate to reexamine attorney’s fees to determine if the redis…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Johnson v. State, 899 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Stanislaw Matajek v. Leokadia Skowronska, 927 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Derrevere v. Gena Derrevere, 899 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Stephen D. Plichta, Jr., M.D. v. Plichta, 899 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- 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)
- Yougraj Beharry v. Drake, 52 So. 3d 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)