DOMENICK GRASSO
v.
KARA S. GRASSO
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.
A trial court must make specific evidentiary findings regarding availability and cost of insurance, the obligor's ability to pay, and special circumstances before ordering a party to purchase or maintain a life insurance policy to secure child support.
[1] A trial court order requiring a party to purchase or maintain a life insurance policy to secure child support is invalid unless the court makes specific evidentiary findi…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 order to support the life insurance requirement, the trial court must make specific evidentiary findings as to the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor's ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant such security.”
Court citing Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) to establish the required factual findings for life insurance orders.
In a dissolution of marriage case, the trial court ordered the former husband to purchase or maintain a life insurance policy to secure child support …
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 Imputation Of Income For Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D18-1479 _____________________________
DOMENICK GRASSO,
Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v.
KARA S. GRASSO,
Appellee/Cross-Appellant. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Jennie Kinsey, Judge.
February 18, 2019
PER CURIAM.
Former husband appeals the amended final judgement of dissolution of marriage, raising issues related to: valuations of marital property for equitable distribution, imputation of income for calculating child support and retroactive child support, and the securing of child support via a life insurance policy. Former wife cross-appeals, claiming error in the denial of her request for attorney’s fees. We affirm as to all issues on the appeal and crossappeal except the life insurance issue, which we now discuss. A trial court is authorized to order a party to purchase or maintain a life insurance policy “to the extent necessary to protect an award of child support.” Fla. Stat. § 61.13(1)(c) (2017). A trial court, however, may not do so “without making factual findings
2
regarding the necessity of such coverage.” Winney v. Winney, 979 So. 2d 396, 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“In order to support the life insurance requirement, the trial court must make specific evidentiary findings as to the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor's ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant such security.”). We agree with the former husband that the trial court did not make the requisite factual findings (a point the former wife does not address in her answer brief), and we are unable to determine whether this error was harmless. Winney, 979 So. 2d at 401. We, therefore, reverse the amended final judgment as to the life insurance policy and remand for a determination supported by specific evidentiary findings in support of the life insurance requirement. Therriault v. Therriault, 102 So. 3d 711, 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. WOLF, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Domenick Grasso, Pro se, Appellant.
Ross A. Keene and Nicole Kessler Ferry, Pensacola, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Winney v. Jayme Carol Winney, 979 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Therriault v. Therriault, 102 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)