Hull v. Hull

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hull v. Hull

910 So. 2d 898, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14293, 2005 WL 2179962

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 8, 2005

DocketNo. 1D05-454

StatusPublished

This text of 910 So. 2d 898 (Hull v. Hull) 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

Hull v. Hull, 910 So. 2d 898, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14293, 2005 WL 2179962 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMAS, J.

We have for review Former Husband’s appeal of an equitable distribution and award of rehabilitative alimony. The trial court directed Former Husband to obtain a life insurance policy to secure payment of the rehabilitative alimony. We affirm the distribution and award of rehabilitative alimony, but reverse the trial court’s requirement of life insurance.

Special circumstances may require a spouse to purchase life insurance to secure the payment of alimony. Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So.2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). However, before a court can require a party to carry such insurance, it must make findings regarding its necessity. Schoditsch v. Schoditsch, 888 So.2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). In making these findings, the trial court should consider the cost and availability of such a requirement. Id. Here, the trial court failed to make these required findings in its order. See Stalnaker v. Stalnaker, 892 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Therefore, we reverse and [899]*899remand for the trial court to make the proper findings, based upon the evidence presented.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WOLF and HAWKES JJ., concur.

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

THOMAS, J.

We have for review Former Husband’s appeal of an equitable distribution and award of rehabilitative alimony. The trial court directed Former Husband to obtain a life insurance policy to secure payment of the rehabilitative alimony. We affirm the distribution and award of rehabilitative alimony, but reverse the trial court’s requirement of life insurance.

Special circumstances may require a spouse to purchase life insurance to secure the payment of alimony. Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So.2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). However, before a court can require a party to carry such insurance, it must make findings regarding its necessity. Schoditsch v. Schoditsch, 888 So.2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). In making these findings, the trial court should consider the cost and availability of such a requirement. Id. Here, the trial court failed to make these required findings in its order. See Stalnaker v. Stalnaker, 892 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Therefore, we reverse and [899]*899remand for the trial court to make the proper findings, based upon the evidence presented.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WOLF and HAWKES JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

910 So. 2d 898, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14293, 2005 WL 2179962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hull-v-hull-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack