Phillips v. Phillips

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Phillips v. Phillips

796 So. 2d 1289, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14879, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2525

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 19, 2001

DocketNo. 5D01-633

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 796 So. 2d 1289 (Phillips v. Phillips) 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

Phillips v. Phillips, 796 So. 2d 1289, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14879, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2525 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRIS, J.

Because many of the findings (and rulings) by the court in this dissolution action are unsupported by the record, we reverse. This was a two-year marriage involving two children. The parties had similar employment with similar income. Based on the guidelines, each was assessed approximately the same amount of child support. But in addition to this amount, the husband, as additional child support, was required to keep the children medically insured and to provide $100,000 in life insurance for the benefit of the children. Since both of the parties have similar income and similar obligations of support¹, the cost of the medical insurance and the cost of the life insurance, if the court finds it necessary, should be shared on the same basis as the child support unless the court can explain a reason for the disparity. See generally Gingola v. Velasco, 668 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1996).

The assessment against the husband of $5,470.68 to repay the wife for debts she paid before she declared bankruptcy, as candidly conceded by the wife’s attorney, has absolutely no support in the record and is reversed.

The husband’s claim for a share of the improvements to the wife’s house after marriage as a marital distribution was, as found by the trial judge, unsupported by the record and the denial is affirmed.

The furniture and personal property have not been listed and valued as required by section 61.075, Fla. Stat. (2000). The award for marital distribution is therefore reversed.

In all other respects, we affirm the trial court’s rulings.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED to delete the husband’s obligation to repay the wife $5, 470.63 as a reimbursement for payment of debt and for reconsideration of the insurance requirements and marital distribution.

COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

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

HARRIS, J.

Because many of the findings (and rulings) by the court in this dissolution action are unsupported by the record, we reverse. This was a two-year marriage involving two children. The parties had similar employment with similar income. Based on the guidelines, each was assessed approximately the same amount of child support. But in addition to this amount, the husband, as additional child support, was required to keep the children medically insured and to provide $100,000 in life insurance for the benefit of the children. Since both of the parties have similar income and similar obligations of support¹, the cost of the medical insurance and the cost of the life insurance, if the court finds it necessary, should be shared on the same basis as the child support unless the court can explain a reason for the disparity. See generally Gingola v. Velasco, 668 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1996).

The assessment against the husband of $5,470.68 to repay the wife for debts she paid before she declared bankruptcy, as candidly conceded by the wife’s attorney, has absolutely no support in the record and is reversed.

The husband’s claim for a share of the improvements to the wife’s house after marriage as a marital distribution was, as found by the trial judge, unsupported by the record and the denial is affirmed.

The furniture and personal property have not been listed and valued as required by section 61.075, Fla. Stat. (2000). The award for marital distribution is therefore reversed.

In all other respects, we affirm the trial court’s rulings.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED to delete the husband’s obligation to repay the wife $5, 470.63 as a reimbursement for payment of debt and for reconsideration of the insurance requirements and marital distribution.

COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

796 So. 2d 1289, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14879, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-phillips-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack