DONALD W. PHILLIPS, APPELLANT,
v.
LAURALEIGH A. PHILLIPS, 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 the trial court's findings and rulings in the dissolution action were unsupported by the record and therefore reversed certain aspects of the judgment.
[1] A court must provide a reason for a disparity in the sharing of supplemental child support obligations, such as medical and life insurance, when parents have similar inco…
[2] A debt repayment award is reversible when it is not supported by the record.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 parties were married for two years with similar incomes and two children. The trial court ordered the husband to pay child support, keep children …
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 Child Support Obligation cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
Because many of the findings (and rulings) by the court in this dissolution action are unsupported by the record, we reverse. This was a two-year marriage involving two children. The parties had similar employment with similar income. Based on the guidelines, each was assessed approximately the same amount of child support. But in addition to this amount, the husband, as additional child support, was required to keep the children medically insured and to provide $100,000 in life insurance for the benefit of the children. Since both of the parties have similar income and similar obligations of support1, the cost of the medical insurance and the cost of the life insurance, if the court finds it necessary, should be shared on the same basis as the child support unless the court can explain a reason for the disparity. See generally Gingola v. Velasco, 668 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1996).
The assessment against the husband of $5,470.68 to repay the wife for debts she paid before she declared bankruptcy, as candidly conceded by the wife’s attorney, has absolutely no support in the record and is reversed.
The husband’s claim for a share of the improvements to the wife’s house after marriage as a marital distribution was, as found by the trial judge, unsupported by the record and the denial is affirmed.
The furniture and personal property have not been listed and valued as required by section 61.075, Fla. Stat. (2000). The award for marital distribution is therefore reversed.
In all other respects, we affirm the trial court’s rulings.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED to delete the husband’s obligation to repay the wife $5, 470.63 as a reimbursement for payment of debt and for reconsideration of the insurance requirements and marital distribution.
COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . The legislature has determined that the burden of child support shall be shared by the parents in accordance with their incomes. There seems to be no reason why supplemental child support in the form of insurance obligations should not also be so shared.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Franz Edward Mitchell v. Mitchell, 841 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)….30(8). See Hoffman v. Hoffman, 793 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In its final judgment, the court directed Mr. Mitchell to maintain a $100,000 policy of life insurance as security for his child support obligation. He cites Phillips v. Phillips, 796 So. 2d 1289, 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), for the proposition that the cost of this insurance should have been apportioned between the parties in the same way that child support is apportioned generally. We agree, with two provisos: The cost of such insurance shou…
Authorities Cited
- Gingola v. Velasco, 668 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)