Gazaleh v. Reeves

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gazaleh v. Reeves

940 So. 2d 1200, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17637, 2006 WL 3017255

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 25, 2006

DocketNo. 1D06-1409

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 940 So. 2d 1200 (Gazaleh v. Reeves) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gazaleh v. Reeves, 940 So. 2d 1200, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17637, 2006 WL 3017255 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jamal J. Gazaleh, appeals the trial court’s Final Judgment of Paternity (“Final Judgment”), raising three arguments on appeal, only one of which merits discussion. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy to secure his child support obligation because it failed to make the requisite findings. We agree and, therefore, reverse the Final Judgment as to this issue and remand. We otherwise affirm the Final Judgment.

As we have explained, before a trial court orders a party to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy, it is required to make findings with regard to the necessity for the coverage. See Schoditsch v. Schoditsch, 888 So.2d 709, 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). In determining necessity, a trial court should consider the financial impact on the obligor and the cost and availability of the coverage. Id.; see also Smith v. Smith, 912 So.2d 702, 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (noting that to require a life insurance policy, a trial court must make findings as to the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor’s ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant the policy); Guerin v. DiRoma, 819 So.2d 968, 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (reversing the insurance protection requirement in the final judgment because the trial court did not make any finding with respect to the necessity for insurance protection or the obligor’s ability to pay for the life insurance policy). Appellee, Christine Reeves, concedes that the trial court did not make the requisite findings in this case.

Accordingly, we REVERSE the Final Judgment as to this issue and REMAND for further proceedings.

WOLF, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jamal J. Gazaleh, appeals the trial court’s Final Judgment of Paternity (“Final Judgment”), raising three arguments on appeal, only one of which merits discussion. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy to secure his child support obligation because it failed to make the requisite findings. We agree and, therefore, reverse the Final Judgment as to this issue and remand. We otherwise affirm the Final Judgment.

As we have explained, before a trial court orders a party to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy, it is required to make findings with regard to the necessity for the coverage. See Schoditsch v. Schoditsch, 888 So.2d 709, 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). In determining necessity, a trial court should consider the financial impact on the obligor and the cost and availability of the coverage. Id.; see also Smith v. Smith, 912 So.2d 702, 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (noting that to require a life insurance policy, a trial court must make findings as to the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor’s ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant the policy); Guerin v. DiRoma, 819 So.2d 968, 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (reversing the insurance protection requirement in the final judgment because the trial court did not make any finding with respect to the necessity for insurance protection or the obligor’s ability to pay for the life insurance policy). Appellee, Christine Reeves, concedes that the trial court did not make the requisite findings in this case.

Accordingly, we REVERSE the Final Judgment as to this issue and REMAND for further proceedings.

WOLF, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

940 So. 2d 1200, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17637, 2006 WL 3017255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gazaleh-v-reeves-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack