Court must find that life insurance is available, affordable and necessary to secure alimony or child support obligation before ordering spouse to pay

The trial court erred in the case of Packo v. Packo, 38 FLW D1861b (Fla 5th DCA) opinion filed August 30, 2013, by failing to make findings regarding valuation of assets distributed and in ordering husband to obtain life insurance policy to secure alimony and child support obligations without findings on availability and cost of insurance, husband's ability to pay and special circumstances that warrant requirement. The amount of insurance ordered must also be related to the support obligation.
full opinion follows:
The former husband, Richard G. Packo, appeals the final judgment that
dissolved his marriage to the former wife, Kimberly S. Packo. We reverse and remand
for the trial court to make the necessary valuations for the equitable distribution of
marital assets and to reconsider the life insurance obligation imposed on the former
husband or support such obligation with the requisite findings. We affirm the final
judgment in all other respects.
We review the trial court’s final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage for an
abuse of discretion. Vitalis v. Vitalis, 799 So. 2d 1127, 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The
trial court’s discretion, however, is curtailed by certain statutory and judicially created
requirements. E.g., Id. at 1131 (reversing final judgment of dissolution for failure to
make statutorily required findings).
A. Equitable Distribution
Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2011), requires a trial court to make specific
findings of fact when equitably distributing marital property, “including the individual
valuation of significant assets” and the “[i]dentification of marital liabilities.” Failure to
comply with the requirements of section 61.075(3) is reversible error. Cook v. Cook,
714 So. 2d 1158, 1158–59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (citing Holmes v. Holmes, 709 So. 2d
166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)); see also Calderon v. Calderon, 730 So. 2d 400, 403 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1999) (reversing and remanding, in part, because final judgment failed to state
findings of value for three assets, regardless of how proper distribution appeared).
The final judgment on review lacks the requisite valuation for the marital home
and other properties that the court distributed. Without proper valuation of the marital
assets, this Court is unable to meaningfully review the trial court’s distribution for an
abuse of discretion. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to make the
required findings regarding the equitable distribution of the marital property.
B. Life Insurance Obligation
A trial court has the power to order any party responsible for payment of alimony
to “purchase or maintain a life insurance policy or a bond” to the extent necessary to
protect the award.” § 61.08, Fla. Stat.; see also Foster v. Foster, 83 So. 3d 747, 748 3
(Fla. 5th DCA 2011). This obligation, however, must be supported by “specific
evidentiary findings regarding the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor’s ability
to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant the requirement for security of the
obligation.” Foster, 83 So. 3d at 748 (citing Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892, 893 (Fla.
1st DCA 2009)). A trial court’s failure to make the required findings constitutes
reversible error. Id. (citing Schoditsch v. Schoditsch, 888 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA
2004)). Additionally, the amount of insurance ordered must be related to the support
obligation; thus, it is error for a court to order a party to purchase a life insurance policy
that is greater in value than the support obligation. Id. at 748–49 (citing Burnham v.
Burnham, 884 So. 2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)).
Here, the life insurance requirement of the final judgment provides as follows:
The Husband shall be required to maintain a $500,000.00 life insurance
policy, naming the Wife as the sole and irrevocable beneficiary, as
security for his alimony and child support obligations. This shall be in
effect within thirty (30) days of the date of this Final Judgment with written
proof given to the Wife also within thirty (30) days of the date of this Final
Judgment.
This language does not include the detailed findings needed to support its purpose.
Accordingly, we also reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider the life
insurance obligation and, if applicable, make the necessary findings to support such an
obligation.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.