From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schoditsch v. Schoditsch

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Dec 3, 2004
888 So. 2d 709 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Summary

addressing life insurance as security

Summary of this case from Winney v. Winney

Opinion

Nos. 1D04-1992, 1D04-2121.

December 3, 2004.

Appeal and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County, Judges T. Patterson Maney, and Joseph Q. Tarbuck.

John P. Townsend; John P. Townsend, P.A., Fort Walton Beach, for Appellant /Cross-Appellee.

Anthony C. Bisordi; Bisordi Bisordi, P.A., Shalimar, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.


In this appeal and cross-appeal following a final order of dissolution of marriage, six issues are raised. Concluding only two have merit, we affirm the remaining issues on appeal, and the sole issue on cross-appeal, without discussion.

In its final order, the trial court ordered Appellant to pay the entire cost of the health insurance for the parties' minor child, and required her to obtain a life insurance policy for as long as she is required to pay child support. However, the court is required by statute to apportion the cost of the insurance between the parties on a percentage basis. See § 61.13(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003); Artuso v. Dick, 843 So.2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Forrest v. Ron, 821 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

Additionally, before ordering a party to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy, the court is required to make findings regarding the necessity for such coverage. See § 61.08(3), Fla. Stat. (2003); Guerin v. DiRoma, 819 So.2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Cissel v. Cissel, 845 So.2d 993 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In determining such necessity, the trial court should consider the cost and availability of the insurance and the financial impact on the obligor. See Guerin, 819 So.2d at 970; Cissel, 845 So.2d at 995.

The final order is REVERSED as to these two issues only, and the case REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Schoditsch v. Schoditsch

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Dec 3, 2004
888 So. 2d 709 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

addressing life insurance as security

Summary of this case from Winney v. Winney

referencing section 61.08, Florida Statutes, which permits a trial court to order a party to obtain life insurance as security for alimony "to the extent necessary to protect" the award

Summary of this case from Winney v. Winney
Case details for

Schoditsch v. Schoditsch

Case Details

Full title:Susan SCHODITSCH, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Richard SCHODITSCH…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Dec 3, 2004

Citations

888 So. 2d 709 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Citing Cases

Winney v. Winney

This Court has held that a trial court must make findings to address specific issues when awarding alimony,…

Stalnaker v. Stalnaker

Before requiring a party to do so, a trial court must "make findings regarding the necessity for such…