Hodges v. Hodges

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hodges v. Hodges

128 So. 3d 190, 2013 WL 6331589, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19440

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 6, 2013

DocketNo. 5D12-4424

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 128 So. 3d 190 (Hodges v. Hodges) 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

Hodges v. Hodges, 128 So. 3d 190, 2013 WL 6331589, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19440 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges several aspects of a final judgment in this dissolution of marriage case. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The parties agree that the trial court erred in calculating child support by basing the calculation on gross income amounts. Based on the child support guidelines worksheet attached to the final judgment, the correct amount of child support is $140.65 per month.

We agree with Appellant that the trial court erred in ordering him to provide life insurance to secure his child support obligation. First, the requirement is not supported by sufficient factual findings. Lay-eni v. Layeni, 843 So.2d 295, 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Second, the court erroneously ordered Appellant to procure insurance in an amount exceeding the obligation. Foster v. Foster, 83 So.3d 747, 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Finally, the court erroneously ordered Appellant to list Appellee as the beneficiary. Alpha v. Alpha, 885 So.2d 1023,1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

The final issue that we address is the trial court’s order directing the partition of the marital home. This was the only significant asset available for distribution. The trial court distributed it to Appellant with the proviso that Appellant must pay Appellee her equity in the home within six months, failing which the property must be sold. Appellant challenges the order to sell the property because neither party [191]*191had requested partition. See, e.g., Watson v. Watson, 646 So.2d 297, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (trial court without authority to order partition of property in absence of plea by either party). Accordingly, we reverse the order to the extent that it requires sale of the property. On remand, the trial court may revisit the distribution scheme. Alternatively, Appellee may move to enforce the directive to pay Appel-lee’s equity, in which case the trial court may order the sale of the property as a mechanism to enforce that aspect of the order, if requested in a motion.

In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

TORPY, C.J., and SAWAYA, J., concur. COHEN, J., concurs specially with opinion in which TORPY, C.J., concurs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges several aspects of a final judgment in this dissolution of marriage case. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The parties agree that the trial court erred in calculating child support by basing the calculation on gross income amounts. Based on the child support guidelines worksheet attached to the final judgment, the correct amount of child support is $140.65 per month.

We agree with Appellant that the trial court erred in ordering him to provide life insurance to secure his child support obligation. First, the requirement is not supported by sufficient factual findings. Lay-eni v. Layeni, 843 So.2d 295, 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Second, the court erroneously ordered Appellant to procure insurance in an amount exceeding the obligation. Foster v. Foster, 83 So.3d 747, 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Finally, the court erroneously ordered Appellant to list Appellee as the beneficiary. Alpha v. Alpha, 885 So.2d 1023,1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

The final issue that we address is the trial court’s order directing the partition of the marital home. This was the only significant asset available for distribution. The trial court distributed it to Appellant with the proviso that Appellant must pay Appellee her equity in the home within six months, failing which the property must be sold. Appellant challenges the order to sell the property because neither party [191]*191had requested partition. See, e.g., Watson v. Watson, 646 So.2d 297, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (trial court without authority to order partition of property in absence of plea by either party). Accordingly, we reverse the order to the extent that it requires sale of the property. On remand, the trial court may revisit the distribution scheme. Alternatively, Appellee may move to enforce the directive to pay Appel-lee’s equity, in which case the trial court may order the sale of the property as a mechanism to enforce that aspect of the order, if requested in a motion.

In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

TORPY, C.J., and SAWAYA, J., concur. COHEN, J., concurs specially with opinion in which TORPY, C.J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 So. 3d 190, 2013 WL 6331589, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodges-v-hodges-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack