FURNO v. VAUGHN (2026)

The father appeals from the circuit court's final judgment and supplemental final judgment entered in the underlying paternity and relocation action. The final judgment established the father's paternity to the child and granted the mother's relocation petition. The supplemental final judgment established a long-distance parenting plan and awarded the mother retroactive and prospective child support.

The father's appeal raises five issues, only one of which has merit. On that issue, the father argues the circuit court erred in requiring him to obtain and maintain a $1,000,000 life insurance policy naming the mother and child as beneficiaries to protect the child support payments. According to the father, no evidence was presented, and the circuit court made no findings, regarding: the necessity for such insurance protection; the father's insurability; the cost of purchasing a $1,000,000 life insurance policy; or the father's ability to afford such a policy.

We agree that the circuit court failed to make the appropriate findings to support this requirement. Section 61.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2022), pertinently provides: “To the extent necessary to protect an award of child support, the court may order the obligor to purchase or maintain a life insurance policy[.]” § 61.13(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2022). To order such relief, “the circumstances must suggest a necessity for such protection, and therefore the trial court should make appropriate findings regarding the necessity [for] insurance protection.” Gross v. Zimmerman, 197 So. 3d 1248, 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citation omitted).

Moreover, “for a trial court to order that a party purchase insurance to secure a support obligation, 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). See also Knight v. Knight, 746 So. 2d 1117, 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“[W]e agree with the husband that the trial court erred in ordering him to maintain a life insurance policy to secure the child support award without having evidence of the existence of a policy or the cost thereof.”); Guerin v. DiRoma, 819 So. 2d 968, 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“Upon review of the record, we agree with [the father's] contention that insufficient evidence was presented regarding the father's insurability or what the cost of life insurance would be.”).

Accordingly, we reverse on this issue. As we stated in Zvida v. Zvida, 103 So. 3d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), we remand for the circuit court to:

[M]ake the requisite findings, including whether special circumstances are present, and if such special circumstances are present, for an evidentiary hearing on the availability, cost, and the [father's] ability to pay any insurance required by the [circuit] court. If all the above are met, and the [circuit] court orders life insurance to secure child support, then the [circuit] court should require that the child[ ] be designated as the beneficiar[y] of the life insurance policy purchased to secure the child support payment.

Id. at 1054.

We also note the mother should not be named as a beneficiary on the life insurance policy. See id. (“[T]he trial court erred by naming the wife as the beneficiary of the life insurance policy securing the payment of child support.”); Layeni v. Layeni, 843 So. 2d 295, 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“[T]he former wife should not be named as the beneficiary of the policy. The wife has no protectable interest except as the obligee of child support payments. It should be made clear that the policy is for the benefit of the children and no one else.”).

On the other four issues which the father has raised in this appeal, we affirm without further discussion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

Gerber, C.J.

May and Shaw, JJ., concur.