Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Raymond M. SHULSTAD, Appellant, v. Mitzi A. SHULSTAD, Appellee.
Raymond Shulstad appeals the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. He raises four issues; we affirm, without further discussion, as to three. We write to address his last issue: that the trial court erred in ordering Mr. Shulstad to maintain $750,000 in life insurance coverage to secure his postdissolution support obligations. Mitzi Shulstad properly concedes that the trial court erred in ordering an increase in Mr. Shulstad's life insurance coverage. We reverse and remand for further proceedings on this issue.
The trial court may require a party to secure child support and alimony payments with life insurance coverage. However, “the record should contain evidence of the payor's insurability, the cost of the proposed insurance, and the payor's ability to afford the insurance.” Lopez v. Lopez, 780 So.2d 164, 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Gordon v. Gordon, 63 So.3d 824, 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (holding that “there must be evidence in the record and findings by the court as to the cost of the insurance being required in order to establish that the obligor can obtain and afford such insurance coverage”).
The trial court had evidence before it about the cost and ability of Mr. Shulstad to maintain his then-current $500,000 life insurance policy. The trial court had no evidence of the cost to increase and Mr. Shulstad's ability to pay for coverage of $750,000.
Under the facts of the present case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by requiring that the former husband maintain a life insurance policy to secure the alimony awarded to the former wife. However, the amount of the coverage which the former husband was ordered to maintain lacks a sufficient evidentiary basis—the record contains no evidence of the ․ cost of the proposed insurance, and, thus, the former husband's ability to pay that unspecified cost.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
LaROSE, Judge.
Zangari v. Cunningham, 839 So.2d 918, 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing Lopez, 780 So.2d at 164).VILLANTI, C.J., and KHOUZAM, J., Concur.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 2D15–941.
Decided: May 25, 2016
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)