TROY THERRIAULT, HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
LISA THERRIAULT, 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.
This case involves an appeal of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage regarding permanent periodic alimony and life insurance requirements. The court affirmed the alimony award of $1,123.67 per month but reversed the trial court's order requiring the former husband to maintain $500,000 in life insurance, finding insufficient evidentiary findings to support the life insurance requirement.
The court held that the alimony award was within the trial court's discretion and was supported by competent and substantial evidence, thus affirming that portion of the judgment. However, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering life insurance without making the specific evidentiary findings required by law regarding availability and cost of insurance, the obligor's ability to pay, and special circumstances warranting such security.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent periodic alimony when the award is based on competent and substantial evidence and does not cause either…
[2] A Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage entered prior to July 1, 2011, is not subject to the legislative amendments to section 61.08(8), Florida Statutes (2011), requ…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Troy Therriault, the former husband, to pay to Lisa Therriault, the former wife, $1,123.67 per month in permanent periodic alimony when it dissolved the parties' "moderate-term" marriage of nearly sixteen years”
Establishes that the alimony award was within the trial court's discretion and properly supported
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTroy and Lisa Therriault were married for nearly sixteen years, characterized as a "moderate-term" marriage. Upon dissolution, the trial court ordered…
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 Alimony Award Criteria cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon careful review of the record and consideration of the totality of the circumstances presented therein, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Troy Therriault, the former husband, to pay to Lisa Therriault, the former wife, $1,123.67 per month in permanent periodic alimony when it dissolved the parties’ “moderate-term” marriage of nearly sixteen years. See §§ 61.08(4) & 61.08(8), Fla. Stat. (2010). The alimony award is based on competent and substantial evidence and does not cause either spouse to pass “ ‘automatically from misfortune to prosperity or from prosperity to misfortune.’ ” Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1204 (Fla.1980) (quoting Brown v. Brown, 300 So.2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)). Because the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, in which the initial award of alimony was made, was entered prior to July 1, 2011, the effective date of the legislative amendments to section 61.08(8), Florida Statutes (2011),1 the trial court was not required to make the now-requisite finding, as urged by the former husband, “that no other form of alimony is fair and reasonable under the circumstances of the parties.” See Ch.2011-92, § 80, Laws of Fla. Accordingly, we affirm the award of permanent periodic alimony.
We conclude, however, that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the former husband to maintain $500,000 in life insurance to secure his alimony and child support obligations, naming the former wife as irrevocable beneficiary. The trial court is authorized by sections 61.08(3) and 61.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), to require the former husband, as the party ordered to pay alimony and child support, to purchase or maintain a life insurance policy to secure those awards. Yet, “[i]n order to support the life insurance requirement, the trial court must make specific evidentiary findings as to the availability and cost of insurance, the [former husband’s] ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant such security.” 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), and 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 *714of the obligation being secured.” Burnham, 884 So.2d at 392 (citing Zangan v. Cunningham, 889 So.2d 918, 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)).
Kotlarz, 21 So.3d at 893. Here, the trial court failed to include specific findings to support the life insurance requirement; therefore, we reverse as to the ordered life insurance and remand for further consideration.
AFFIRMED, in part, REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED for further consideration consistent with this opinion.
PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ketcher v. Deirdre E. Ketcher, 188 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…hority “to do equity between the parties” in the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities). However, the amount of the life insurance policy must be related to the extent of the obligation being secured. See Therriault v. Therriault, 102 So. 3d 711, 713-14 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Here, although the balance on the joint credit card the former husband was obligated to pay was approximately $20,000 (and .the - former husband agreed to obtain life insurance with the former wife as the beneficiary in…
-
Gotro v. Gotro, 218 So. 3d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…imony award. The trial court had the authority to require the former husband to maintain a life insurance policy with the former wife as beneficiary in order to secure the alimony payment. See § 61.08(3), Fla. Stat. (2015); Therriault v. Therriault, 102 So. 3d 711, 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). In Ther-riault, this Court held that, in so requiring, the trial court “must make specific eviden-tiary findings as to the availability and cost of insurance, the [former husband’s] ability to pay, and the special circumsta…
-
Mahoney v. Mahoney, 251 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…ove. Life Insurance to Secure Alimony and Child Support A trial court’s decision to require the obligor spouse to maintain life insurance to secure awards of alimony and child support is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Therriault v. Therriault, 102 So. 3d 711, 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Here, the trial court was authorized by the provisions of sections 61.08(3) and 61.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2016), to require the former husband—as the party ordered to pay alimony and child support— to purchase or maint…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Brown v. Brown, 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Johnson v. State, 899 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- 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)
- Goins v. State, 889 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)