Family Law case Law updates March 25, 2013

WEEKLY FAMILY LAW CASE LAW UPDATES
March 25, 2013
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE-LIFE INSURANCE-ATTORNEY FEES & COSTS
In Sweeny v. Sweeny, 38 FLW D627b (Fla. 5th DCA opinion filed March 15, 2013), the court reiterated the necessary findings required to order life insurance to protect an alimony award. Citing Sec. 61.08(3) Fla. Stat. This district and other districts have held that such security is justified only if there is a demonstrated need to protect the alimony recipient, such as when he or she would be left in dire economic straights upon the death of the payor former spouse. The trial court must set forth specific findings of special circumstances, the payor spouse’s ability to afford the security, and whether the security exists only for arrearages, or alternatively, if the whole or portion of the security is payable to the surviving family to minimize economic harm. See Judge Altenbernd’s concurring opinion in Kearley v. Kearley, 745 So. 2d 987, 990 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
In this case, the trial court’s findings did not support the order requiring the former husband to secure his alimony payment obligation. The former wife received a large equitable distribution in the case and she had the ability to support herself. Therefore, she was unable to demonstrate that the former husband’s death would leave her in dire economic circumstances. Accordingly, the security requirement was ordered stricken from the final judgment.
This case also dealt with attorney fees that the former husband was required to pay. The DCA agreed that the trial court erred by including nine hours of travel time for the former wife’s CPA at $285.00 per hours and by including travel time for the former wife’s vocational expert, as well as this expert’s $1,700.00 cancellation fee caused by the former Wife’s attorney. See Chandler v. Chandler, 330 So. 2d 190, 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). This was remanded for the trial court to enter an amended fee and cost order deleting these costs.
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE-CHILD SUPPORT-MEDICAL EXPENSES
In Oliver v. Oliver, 38 FLW D625a (Fla. 5th DCA opinion filed March 15, 2013) the former husband appealed. The final judgment was affirmed with one modification. The requirement that the former husband reimburse the former wife 75% of the cost of any medical expenses incurred by the minor or dependent children was modified to apply only to non-elective reasonable and necessary medical procedures, absent the former husband’s express agreement or court order. See Hill v, Hill, 706 So. 2d 406,407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE-HEALTH INSURANCE
In Gaudette v. Gaudette, 38 FLW D610b (Fla. 4th DCA opinion filed March 13, 2013) the DCA remanded for reconsideration of finding that there was no evidence as to cost of wife’s health insurance and whether that cost would be affordable to husband where his financial affidavit included the monthly cost of her insurance at $195.00 per month. Trial court directed to reconsider its findings in light of this record evidence.