KENNETH W. PALMER, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
DEBORAH B. PALMER, 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.
Kenneth Palmer appeals a final judgment dissolving his marriage, challenging the trial court's requirement that he obtain life insurance as security for alimony obligations and the award of a website to his former wife. The appellate court finds the life insurance requirement lacks adequate factual findings and reverses that portion, but affirms the website distribution.
The court reversed the life insurance requirement because it was not supported by sufficient factual findings as to cost and special circumstances, requiring the trial court on remand to make adequate findings or remove the requirement. The court affirmed the website award, finding no inequity in distributing an apparently insignificant asset that the parties failed to value.
[1] An order requiring a spouse to obtain a life insurance policy as security for an alimony award must be supported by record evidence and include findings as to the cost of…
[2] Failure to make specific factual findings to support an order requiring life insurance as security for alimony is reversible error.
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“An order requiring a spouse to obtain a life insurance policy as security for an alimony award must be supported by record evidence, and the order must include findings as to the cost of insurance and any special circumstances justifying the need for the policy.”
Establishes the legal standard for life insurance requirements in alimony awards
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenneth and Deborah Palmer were married for eighteen years. The trial court dissolved their marriage and awarded permanent alimony to the Former Wife.…
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 Equitable Distribution Of Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
Kenneth Palmer (“Former Husband”) appeals a finál judgment dissolving his marriage to Deborah Palmer (“Former Wife”), He raises a number of issues, only one with merit — the trial court’s requirement, without adequate factual findings, *1036that he obtain life insurance as security for his alimony obligations.1
An order requiring a spouse to obtain a life insurance policy as security for an alimony award must be supported by record evidence, and the order must include findings as to the cost of insurance and any special circumstances justifying the need for the policy. Alpha v. Alpha, 885 So.2d 1023, 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Failure to make specific findings to support the award is reversible error. Id. at 1033-34. Former Wife properly concedes that the trial court erred in not making the requisite findings. Other than Former Wife’s request for insurance in her initial petition, the record is devoid of any testimony or evidence regarding a policy or any special circumstances justifying its requirement. On remand, the trial court shall make sufficient findings of fact to support the award or remove the insurance requirement from its order. See id. at 1034.
Former Husband also challenges the award of a website to Former Wife. Neither party presented any testimony related to the website, discussed the website in the proceedings below, or attempted to establish its value. We do not see any inequity in the trial court distributing an apparently insignificant asset that the parties failed to value. If the parties inadvertently neglected to address a significant asset or liability with material impact on the equitable distribution scheme, we would view the issue differently. Instead, we find Former Husband has made much ado about nothing. He neither addressed the value of the website in his motion for rehearing, nor has he alleged any prejudice. Accordingly, we find no error in this award.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.
LAMBERT, J., and LEMONIDIS, R., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duke v. Duke, 211 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…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 Palmer v. 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.…
-
Veith v. Veith, 315 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Alpha v. Alpha, 885 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)