SCOTT SHIMER, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
ELIZABETH COREY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
In this family law appeal, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dissolution of marriage judgment on issues raised by the former husband but reversed the trial court's requirement that the former wife maintain life insurance to secure her alimony obligation, finding the court failed to make necessary findings and the record did not support imposing such an obligation.
The court reversed the trial court's requirement that Ms. Corey maintain life insurance to secure her alimony obligation. The court held that the trial court failed to make the required findings necessary to support the life insurance requirement and that the record did not independently support imposing such an obligation.
[1] A trial court may order a party to maintain a life insurance policy to secure alimony obligations only to the extent necessary to protect the award.
[2] When ordering a party to maintain life insurance to secure alimony, a trial court must consider the need for such insurance, its cost and availability, and the financial…
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“In the absence of special circumstances, a spouse cannot be required to maintain life insurance for the purposes of securing Alimony obligations.”
Establishes the general rule that life insurance requirements for alimony are disfavored absent 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 intelligenceScott Shimer and Elizabeth Corey were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court issued an amended final judgment of dissolution…
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 Obligation cases and more on FLexlaw
Scott Shimer, the former husband, appeals an amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Elizabeth-'Corey, the former wife, cross-appeals. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App, P. 9.030(b)(1)(A).
We affirm on all issues that Mr, Shimer asserts. We affirm- on all but one issue advanced by Ms. Corey. We reverse on Ms. Corey’s third issue. Ms. Corey argues, and -Mr. Shimer concedes, that- the trial court erred in requiring- Ms. Corey to maintain a life insurance policy to secure her alimony obligation to Mr. Shimer.
Section 61.08(3), Florida Statutes (2015), authorizes the trial .court to “order any party who is ordered to pay alimony to purchase or- maintain a life insurance policy” to the extent necessary to. protect an award of alimony. “[I]n determining whether to secure support awards, the trial court should consider the need for such insurance, the cost and availability of such insurance, and the financial impact upon the obligor.” Plichta v. Plichta, 899 So.2d 1283, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). “In the absence of special circumstances, a spouse cannot be required to maintain life insurance for the purposes of securing Alimony *625obligations.” Pinion v. Pinion, 818 So.2d 557, 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
The trial court failed to make any required findings to support its order that Ms. Corey maintain a life insurance policy to secure her alimony obligation. See Sikora v. Sikora, 173 So.3d 1028, 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“[B]ecause the trial court failed to include the required findings, we reverse the life insurance requirement and remand for further proceedings”). Moreover, our independent review of the record does not support the imposition of this obligation. See Solomon v. Solomon, 861 So.2d 1218, 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“The trial court made no findings that would demonstrate that there was a need to secure the former wife’s alimony, nor does the record demonstrate that such a need exists in this case.”); Ruberg v. Ruberg, 858 So.2d 1147, 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (directing the trial court to strike the portion of the final judgment of dissolution obligating husband to maintain a life insurance policy where “the instant record contains nothing to establish that the $1,000,000 life insurance policy was ‘necessary to protect [the alimony award]’”). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to strike this provision.
Affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and remanded with directions.
KHOUZAM and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. Walker, 274 So. 3d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Stanford R. Solomon v. Sheila A.B. Solomon, 861 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Johnson v. State, 899 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Ruberg v. Ruberg, 858 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Stephen D. Plichta, Jr., M.D. v. Plichta, 899 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Pinion v. Pinion, 818 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Sikora v. Sikora, 173 So. 3d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)