RAYMOND M. SHULSTAD, APPELLANT,
v.
MITZI A. SHULSTAD, 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.
The court held that while a trial court may require life insurance to secure support obligations, it must have an evidentiary basis for the cost and payor's ability to afford it.
[1] A trial court may require a party to secure postdissolution support obligations with life insurance coverage.
[2] To require a party to maintain life insurance for postdissolution support, the record must contain evidence of the payor's insurability, the cost of the proposed insuranc…
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 intelligenceThe trial court ordered the husband to maintain $750,000 in life insurance to secure postdissolution support obligations. The record contained evidenc…
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.
Raymond Shulstad appeals the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. He raises four issues; we affirm, without further discussion, as to three. We write to address his last issue: that the trial court erred in ordering Mr. Shulstad to maintain $750,000 in life insurance coverage to secure his postdissolution support obligations. Mitzi Shulstad properly concedes that the trial eourt erred in ordering an increase in Mr. Shulstad’s life insurance coverage. We reverse and remand for further proceedings on this issue.
The trial court may require a party to secure child support and alimony pay-*606merits with life insurance coverage.' However, “the record should contain evidence of the payor’s insurability, the cost of the proposed insurancé, and the payor’s ability to afford the insurance,” Lopez v. Lopez, 780 So.2d 164, 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Gordon v. Gordon, 63 So.3d 824, 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (holding that “there'' must be evidence in the record and findings by the court as to the cost of the insurance being required in order to establish that the obligor can obtain and afford such insurance coverage”).
The trial court had evidence before it about the cost and ability of Mr. Shul-stad to maintain his then-current $500,000 life insurance policy. The trial court had no evidence of the cost to increase and Mr. Shulstad’s ability to pay for coverage of $750,000.
Under the facts of the present case, the trial court did not abuse its- discretion by requiring that the former husband maintain a life insurance policy to secure thé alimony awarded to the former wife. However, the amount of the coverage which the form'er husband was ordered to maintain lacks a sufficient evidentiary basis — the record contains no evidence of the ... cost of the proposed insurance, and, thus, the,former husband’s, ability to pay that unspecified cost. .
Zangari v. Cunningham, 839 So.2d 918, 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing Lopez, 780 So.2d at 164).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
VILLANTI, C.J., and KH0UZAM, J„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitri Freiha v. Roula Freiha, 197 So. 3d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…t evi-dentiary basis because the record contains no evidence of the availability or cost of the insurance or the former husband’s ability to pay that unknown cost. See Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Shulstad v. Shulstad, 192 So. 3d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). The trial court, in the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, did order, that the former wife would have majority timeshar-ing of the. parties’ minor child, and we affirm that aspect of the judgment. However, the final judg…
Authorities Cited
- Lopez v. Lopez, 780 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Jacobs v. State, 839 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Zangari v. Cunningham, 839 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- McDUFFIE v. State, 63 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 63 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)