NAGABHUSHANAM VELAGA, APPELLANT,
v.
OOHA GUDAPATI, 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.
A former husband appealed a final divorce judgment, challenging various aspects including the parenting plan, child support calculation, life insurance requirement, and an award for missing jewelry. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order requiring the husband to procure life insurance to secure child support, finding the trial court failed to make necessary findings regarding affordability and special circumstances, while affirming all other aspects of the judgment.
The trial court abused its discretion by ordering the Former Husband to procure life insurance without making required findings on the cost of insurance, whether he could afford it, and special circumstances necessitating the order. The court's other determinations were properly within its discretion and are affirmed.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by ordering a party to secure a child support award with a life insurance policy without making findings on the cost of the insurance,…
[2] A trial court must specify when a life insurance obligation to secure child support payments will terminate.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Generally, the trial court has discretion to order the payor of child support to maintain a life insurance policy in order to secure the award. § 61.13(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2012). However, the court's order must include findings on the cost of the insurance and whether the obligor can afford it, and there must be special circumstances that would necessitate such an order.”
Establishes the legal standard for life insurance orders in child support cases, requiring findings on affordability and special circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNagabhushanam Velaga (Former Husband) was divorced from Ooha Gudapati (Former Wife). The trial court entered a final judgment dissolving the marriage …
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 Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
Nagabhushanam Velaga, the Former Husband, appeals the final judgment dissolving his marriage to the Former Wife, Ooha Gudapati. On appeal, the Former Husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) not considering the child’s best interests in its development of the parenting plan; (2) using old data to determine the Former Husband’s ability to pay child support; (3) fading to consider the Former Husband’s transportation costs associated with his timeshar-ing in its determination of child support payments; (4) ordering the Former Husband to secure the child support award with a life insurance policy; (5) entering awards to the Former Wife that cumulatively exhaust the Former Husband’s ability to pay; and (6) ordering the Former Husband to pay the Former Wife the value of her missing nonmarital jewelry. We find merit only in the Former Husband’s contention that it was improper for the trial court to order him to procure and maintain life insurance and therefore reverse on this issue alone. In all other respects, we affirm the final judgment without discussion.
Generally, the trial court has discretion to order the payor of child support to maintain a life insurance policy in order to secure the award. § 61.13(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2012). However, the court’s order must include findings on the cost of the insurance and whether the obligor can afford it, and there must be special circumstances that would necessitate such an order. See Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So.2d 834, 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Here, the trial court did not make any findings on whether the Former Husband could afford life insurance, nor were there any findings of special circumstances that would necessitate the Former Husband obtaining life insurance. Absent these findings, the trial court committed reversible error when it ordered the Former Husband to procure a life insurance policy as security for his child support payments. Hence, we must reverse for these further proceedings.
On remand, if the trial court again obligates the Former Husband to procure and maintain life insurance, it must make the required findings and specify when the life insurance obligation will terminate. See Haydu v. Haydu, 591 So.2d 655, 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DAVIS, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duke v. Duke, 211 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…. Palmer, 198 So. 3d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (determining that order requiring spouse to obtain life insurance policy must include findings as to cost of insurance and any special circumstances justifying need for policy); Velaga v. Gudapati, 148 So. 3d 550, 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding that court’s order requiring party to maintain life insurance to secure alimony award must include findings on cost, whether ob-ligor can afford it, and special circumstances necessitating order). Here, the final ju…
-
Gross v. Zimmerman, 197 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…es must suggest a necessity for such protection, and therefore the trial court should make appropriate findings regarding the necessity of insurance protection.” Guerin v. DiRoma, 819 So. 2d 968, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); see also Velaga v. Gudapati, 148 So. 3d 550, 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Cissel v. Cissel, 845 So. 2d 993, 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Because the mother presented no evidence to support a finding that circumstances suggested a necessity for life insurance protection of the child support award, we a…
-
Walker v. Walker, 274 So. 3d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Cozier v. Varry M. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Haydu v. Haydu, 591 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)