RICHARD G. PACKO, APPELLANT,
v.
KIMBERLY S. PACKO, 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.
Richard Packo appeals a final judgment dissolving his marriage, challenging the trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets and the imposition of a life insurance obligation. The appellate court reverses and remands on both issues due to insufficient factual findings, while affirming all other aspects of the dissolution judgment.
The trial court's failure to include individual valuations of significant marital assets in the final judgment constitutes reversible error requiring remand. Similarly, the life insurance obligation must be supported by specific evidentiary findings regarding insurance availability and cost, the obligor's ability to pay, and special circumstances warranting the security requirement, and the case is remanded for the court to reconsider and either support or modify this obligation.
[1] A trial court's failure to make specific findings of fact regarding the individual valuation of significant assets and the identification of marital liabilities constitut…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to make the requisite valuations of marital assets before distributing them, preventing meaningful appellate review.
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“Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2011), requires a trial court to make specific findings of fact when equitably distributing marital property, "including the individual valuation of significant assets" and the "[i]dentification of marital liabilities."”
Establishes the statutory requirement for equitable distribution findings that the trial court failed to meet.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard and Kimberly Packo were divorcing. The trial court issued a final judgment dissolving their marriage that distributed marital property includi…
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 Valuation Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
The former husband, Richard G. Packo, appeals the final judgment that dissolved his marriage to the former wife, Kimberly S. Packo. We reverse and remand for the trial court to make the necessary valuations for the equitable distribution of marital assets and to reconsider the life insurance obligation imposed on the former husband or support such obligation with the requisite findings. We affirm the final judgment in all other respects.
We review the trial court’s final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage for an abuse of discretion. Vitalis v. Vitalis, 799 So.2d 1127, 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The trial court’s discretion, however, is curtailed by certain statutory and judicially created requirements. E.g., id. at 1131 (reversing final judgment of dissolution for failure to make statutorily required findings).
A. Equitable Distribution
Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2011), requires a trial court to make specific findings of fact when equitably distributing marital property, “including the individual valuation of significant assets” and the “[ijdentification of marital liabilities.” Failure to comply with the requirements of section 61.075(3) is reversible error. Cook v. Cook, 714 So.2d 1158, 1158-59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (citing Holmes v. Holmes, 709 So.2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)); see also Calderon v. Calderon, 730 So.2d 400, 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (reversing and remanding, in part, because final judgment failed to state findings of value for three assets, regardless of how proper distribution appeared).
The final judgment on review lacks the requisite valuation for the marital home and other properties that the court *234distributed. Without proper valuation of the marital assets, this Court is unable to meaningfully review the trial court’s distribution for an abuse of discretion. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to make the required findings regarding the equitable distribution of the marital property.
B. Life Insurance Obligation
A trial court has the power to order any party responsible for payment of alimony to “purchase or maintain a “life insurance policy or a bond” to the extent necessary to protect the award.” § 61.08, Fla. Stat.; see also Foster v. Foster, 83 So.3d 747, 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). This obligation, however, must be supported by “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, 83 So.3d at 748 (citing Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So.3d 892, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)). A trial court’s failure to make the required findings constitutes reversible error. Id. (citing Schoditsch v. Schoditsch, 888 So.2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). Additionally, the amount of insurance ordered must be related to the support obligation; thus, it is error for a court to order a party to purchase a life insurance policy that is greater in value than the support obligation. Id. at 748-49 (citing Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So.2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)).
Here, the life insurance requirement of the final judgment provides as follows:
The Husband shall be required to maintain a $500,000.00 life insurance policy, naming the Wife as the sole and irrevocable beneficiary, as security for his alimony and child support obligations. This shall be in effect within thirty (30) days of the date of this Final Judgment with written proof given to the Wife also within thirty (30) days of the date of this Final Judgment.
This language does not include the detailed findings needed to support its purpose. Accordingly, we also reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider the life insurance obligation and, if applicable, make the necessary findings to support such an obligation.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duke v. Duke, 211 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…CA 2004)). Thus, although there is no transcript in the record, we will reverse where the trial court fails to make factual findings in a final judgment regarding the requirement on a party to maintain life insurance. For example, in Packo v. Packo, 120 So. 3d 232, 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), this Court reversed a life insurance requirement because the final judgment did “not include the detailed findings needed to support its purpose,” and remanded for the trial court to make the necessary findings. See also Pa…
-
Kvinta v. Kvinta, 277 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…ed, and any special circumstances justifying the need for a former spouse to maintain the policy.” Brunsman v. Brunsman, 232 So. 3d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). A trial court’s failure to make these findings is reversible error. Packo v. Packo, 120 So. 3d 232, 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Under the plain language of section 61.08(3), and the caselaw interpreting it, the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Former Husband to maintain a life insurance policy naming Former Wife as the beneficiary. F…
-
Veith v. Veith, 315 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Vitalis v. Lesli Vitalis, 799 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Calderon v. Calderon, 730 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Schoditsch v. Schoditsch, 888 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Foster v. Foster, 83 So. 3d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Holmes v. Holmes, 709 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Metromedia Steakhouses Co., L.P., Ltd. v. USAA Income Props., 714 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Cook v. Cook, 714 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)