Can a judge order life insurance to protect child support & alimony?

In the case of Child v. Child, 34 So.3d 159 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2010), the court stated the following:

TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REQUIRING HUSBAND TO OBTAIN TERM LIFE INSURANCE TO SECURE ALIMONY AWARD IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AS TO THE COST, AMOUNT, OR AVAILABILITY OF SUCH INSURANCE.

The Husband was a self-employed marine electronic technician with a reported gross monthly income of $1,759. Although the Husband was unable to testify as to the number of hours he worked per week, he admitted that if he worked 2 hours per day, 5 days per week, he could make $850 per week. The evidence showed that during the pendency of the divorce, the Husband paid the mortgage and expenses for the wife and children; he also paid credit card bills and children's expenses. The trial court found that husband's income was greater than he reported and imputed an additional $3,000 in monthly income to him. As to the requirement that the Husband obtain life insurance to secure the alimony and child support awards, the District Court held:

"It is within the trial court's authority to order the husband to provide term life insurance to protect the child support and alimony payments. In determining whether to secure support awards, the trial court should consider the need for such insurance, the costs and availability of such insurance, and the financial impact upon the obligor." 

*          *          *

It is important to have life insurance to support any alimony or child support award because the mother and children need to be taken care of in the event of an untimely death of the father.

Can permanent alimony be awarded as lump sum alimony?

In the case of Buoniconti v. Buoniconti, 36 So.3d 154 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2010), the Court found the following:

NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN AWARDING PERMANENT ALIMONY AS A LUMP SUM UPON FINDING THAT HUSBAND HAD A HISTORY OF UNFAIR UNILATERAL FINANCIAL DECISIONS, WASTE, AND A CURRENT RELUCTANCE TO WORK.

The trial court was asked to consider only the wife's claim for permanent and retroactive alimony and her claim that the liquid marital assets should be distributed unequally due to the husband's dissipation of certain marital assets during the marriage. At the close of the dissolution proceedings, the trial court awarded the wife permanent alimony payable as lump sum as well as retroactive alimony. It also found that the husband had dissipated marital assets, and it charged those dissipated assets to the Husband in its equitable distribution scheme.

With regard to the wife's entitlement, the District Court held: "Based on these facts, it was not unreasonable for the trial court to suspect that the Husband might find ways to avoid the payment of any permanent periodic alimony it would award. Indeed, the Husband relied on his current unemployment to argue that his Wife of thirty-eight years was not entitled to any permanent alimony, or at best a nominal sum, because he had no ability to pay. However, the Husband had substantial liquid assets from which he could easily pay an award of permanent alimony as a lump sum. The availability of these liquid assets coupled with the Husband's lack of current income constitute exactly the type of 'special circumstances' necessary to support the trial court's discretionary decision to award permanent alimony payable as a lump sum."

Seal & Heidi Klum divorce

NEW YORK (AP) — Seal and Heidi Klum have announced that their storybook marriage is coming to the end.  In a statement Sunday night, the power couple announced their separation after rumors swirled over the weekend that a divorce was imminent.

"While we have enjoyed seven very loving, loyal and happy years of marriage, after much soul searching we have decided to separate," the joint statement read. "We have had the deepest respect for one another throughout our relationship and continue to love each other very much, but we have grown apart. This is an amicable process and protecting the well-being of our children remains our top priority, especially during this time of transition. We thank our family, friends, and fans for their kind words of support. And for our children's sake, we appreciate you respecting our privacy."

The couple married in 2005 and has four children together, including the supermodel's daughter from a previous relationship.

They were one of Hollywood's most high-profile couples, and seemed to have the relationship everyone should envy. They two starred together in the music video "Secret," they renewed their wedding vows each anniversary, boasted of their love in the media, and threw Halloween bashes together where they dressed in outrageous outfits, most recently last year in New York City, where the two engaged in their typical public display of affection for the cameras.  In an interview with The Associated Press in 2007, the "Kiss from A Rose" singer described his wife, who has a tattoo of his name on her arm, as his best friend.

*          *          *          *

My opinion is that the seven year itch is alive and well.  It will come out eventually that one, or both, decided to cheat for whatever reason.  If you are considering a divorce in Ft. Myers, Florida, call my office for a free consultation.

Can a spouse get credit for paydown of a mortgage of a non-marital asset?

In the case of Valladares v. Junco-Valladares, 30 So.3d 519 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2010), the Court stated if one spouse gets a credit for a pay-down of a mortgage on a non-marital property, they can't also double-dip on alimony.

BY AWARDING WIFE EQUALIZATION PAYMENT BASED ON PAY-DOWNS MADE ON MORTGAGES ON MARITAL HOME TITLED IN HUSBAND'S NAME AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE SAME PAY-DOWNS IN ITS RATIONALE TO AWARD WIFE LUMP SUM ALIMONY BASED ON MARITAL CONTRIBUTIONS SHE MADE TO A NON-MARITAL ASSET, COURT ESSENTIALLY "DOUBLE-DIPPED."

The trial court awarded the wife $1.25 million as a lump sum alimony award, based on the marital contributions she made to the husband's non-marital asset (the former marital residence), as well as the appreciation of those contributions. But, the trial court also awarded the wife $173,469 as an equitable distribution award based on the same contributions. The District Court reversed the equitable distribution award:

1. "The trial court considered the forensic accountant figures [as to mortgage pay-downs] in calculating an equitable distribution award of $173,469 to the wife. However, the trial court also considered those same figures in its rationale to award the wife $1.25 million as a lump sum alimony award, based on the marital contributions she made to the non-marital asset, as well as the appreciation of those contributions."

2. "At issue are the pay-downs on the three mortgages on the residence. Consequently, the equitable distribution award of $173,469 partially allows the wife to essentially double-dip from her contributions to this asset and is error."

3. "Therefore, the $174,469 equitable distribution award must be recalculated by eliminating the mortgage pay-downs from the calculation."

Is child support part of your alimony payment?

In the case of Lin v. Lin, 37 So.3d 941 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2010), the trial court impermissibly double-counted child's expenses when the court awarded Wife alimony including such expenses within her need.  The Wife's financial affidavit demonstrated her monthly need to be $1,637.75, which included expenses paid for the parties' child. The trial court awarded $1,700.00 per month in alimony to meet this need but then awarded child support, making the total monthly award $2,405.76. The District Court held:

1. "An award of alimony must be based on the recipient spouse's need for alimony and the paying spouse's ability to pay… Thus, an award of alimony that exceeds the recipient spouse's need constitutes an abuse of discretion."

2. "In addition, an award of alimony that includes amounts for children's expenses that have already been accounted for in a child support award constitutes an impermissible double-counting of those expenses and requires reversal."

3. "Because the resulting alimony award partially duplicated the child support award and exceeded the Wife's monthly need, the award constituted an abuse of discretion that requires reversal."  

            This case is important for two reasons.  The first reason is that an accurate financial affidavit is very important.  Too many litigants don't spend the time to account for every expense and it will hurt them financially at trial if the case doesn't settle.  The second reason is that a lawyer needs to scrutinize the other parties financial affidavit and child support guidelines for irregularities that will cause his client to pay more than the law requires.

Do you include bonuses when computing alimony & child support?

Should the Judge include bonuses when computing alimony and child support? 

In the 2010 case of Drew v. Drew, 27 So.3d 802, the Second District Court of Appeal said yes.  The trial court excluded the husband's bonus payment from his income finding that bonuses were not "fixed or guaranteed" because they are paid at the discretion of husband's employer. The District Court reversed the award of alimony and child support for further proceedings:

1. "Section 61.30(2), Florida Statutes (2007), requires trial courts to consider bonuses in calculating a spouse's income for purposes of child support, and section 61.08(2)(g) requires trial courts to consider all sources of income available to either party' in computing an award of alimony."

2. "Thus, we have held that when a trial court calculates income for the purpose of awarding child support or alimony, it may not exclude from consideration bonuses that are regular and continuous."

3. "Here, the trial court excluded the husband's bonus payments from his income finding that the bonuses were not 'fixed or guaranteed' because they are paid at the discretion of the husband's employer and because they are dependent upon the employer's yearly profit. While this is true, it is undisputed that the husband has received bonus payments each year for the past nine years, the last eight of which exceeded $25,000."

4. Under similar circumstances, we have concluded that the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded bonuses when determining a party's income for the purposes of alimony or support." 

            If you are considering a divorce in Ft. Myers, Florida, call my office for a free consultation.