life insurance requirement in Florida

2019See Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892, 893 (Fla 1st DCA 2009) (explaining that in order to support a life insurance requirement, a trial court must “make specific evidentiary findings as to the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor’s ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant such security” and noting that such circumstances include a spouse potentially being left in dire financial straits after the death of the obligor spouse due to age, ill health, and/or lack of employment skills, an obligor spouse in poor health, minors living at home, the supported spouse having

2019A trial court, however, may not do so “without making factual findings regarding the necessity of such coverage.” Winney v. Winney, 979 So. 2d 396, 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“In order to support the life insurance requirement, the trial court must make specific evidentiary findings as to the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor's ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant such security.”).

2020See Jimenez v. Jimenez, 211 So. 3d 76, 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (requiring the trial court to make those findings on remand); Sager, 291 So. 3d at 970; Lopez v. Lopez, 780 So. 2d 164, 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (noting that “there may be an insurability question” because the former husband had previously had an artificial heart valve inserted).

2003See Lopez v. Lopez, 780 So.2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that an order requiring a party to purchase life insurance to secure a support obligation must have the requisite evidentiary basis, and reversing for further proceedings to reevaluate the life insurance requirement set forth to secure child support obligations).

2019See Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892, 893 (Fla 1st DCA 2009) (explaining that in order to support a life insurance requirement, a trial court must “make specific evidentiary findings as to the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor’s ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant such security” and noting that such circumstances include a spouse potentially being left in dire financial straits after the death of the obligor spouse due to age, ill health, and/or lack of employment skills, an obligor spouse in poor health, minors living at home, the supported spouse having

2018However, “[i]n order to support the life insurance requirement, the trial court must make specific evidentiary findings as to the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor’s ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant such security.” Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); see also Gotro v. Gotro, 218 So. 3d 494, 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

2019See Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892, 893 (Fla 1st DCA 2009) (explaining that in order to support a life insurance requirement, a trial court must “make specific evidentiary findings as to the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor’s ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant such security” and noting that such circumstances include a spouse potentially being left in dire financial straits after the death of the obligor spouse due to age, ill health, and/or lack of employment skills, an obligor spouse in poor health, minors living at home, the supported spouse having

2019Therriault v. Therriault, 102 So. 3d 711, 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

2017See also Palmer v. Palmer, 198 So. 3d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (determining that order requiring spouse to obtain life insurance policy must include findings as to cost of insurance and any special circumstances justifying need for policy); Velaga v. Gudapati, 148 So. 3d 550, 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding that court’s order requiring party to maintain life insurance to secure alimony award must include findings on cost, whether obligor can afford it, and special circumstances necessitating order).

2017See also Palmer v. Palmer, 198 So.3d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (determining that order requiring spouse to obtain life insurance policy must include findings as to cost of insurance and any special circumstances justifying need for policy); Velaga v. Gudapati, 148 So.3d 550, 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding that court’s order requiring party to maintain life insurance to secure alimony award must include findings on cost, whether ob-ligor can afford it, and special circumstances necessitating order).

2017For example, in Packo v. Packo, 120 So. 3d 232, 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), this Court reversed a life insurance requirement because the final judgment did “not include the detailed findings needed to support its purpose,” and remanded for the trial court to make the necessary findings.

2017For example, in Packo v. Packo, 120 So.3d 232, 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), this Court reversed a life insurance requirement because the final judgment did “not include the detailed findings needed to support its purpose,” and remanded for the trial court to make the necessary findings.

2017See also Palmer v. Palmer, 198 So. 3d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (determining that order requiring spouse to obtain life insurance policy must include findings as to cost of insurance and any special circumstances justifying need for policy); Velaga v. Gudapati, 148 So. 3d 550, 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding that court’s order requiring party to maintain life insurance to secure alimony award must include findings on cost, whether obligor can afford it, and special circumstances necessitating order).

2017See also Palmer v. Palmer, 198 So.3d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (determining that order requiring spouse to obtain life insurance policy must include findings as to cost of insurance and any special circumstances justifying need for policy); Velaga v. Gudapati, 148 So.3d 550, 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding that court’s order requiring party to maintain life insurance to secure alimony award must include findings on cost, whether ob-ligor can afford it, and special circumstances necessitating order).

2012Yet, “[i]n order to support the life insurance requirement, the trial court must make specific evidentiary findings as to the availability and cost of insurance, the [former husband’s] ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant such security.” Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So.3d 892, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Plichta v. Plichta, 899 So.2d 1283, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), and Burnham, v. Burnham, 884 So.2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)).

2009Plichta v. Plichta, 899 So.2d 1283, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So.2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

2012Yet, “[i]n order to support the life insurance requirement, the trial court must make specific evidentiary findings as to the availability and cost of insurance, the [former husband’s] ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant such security.” Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So.3d 892, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Plichta v. Plichta, 899 So.2d 1283, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), and Burnham, v. Burnham, 884 So.2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)).

2009Plichta v. Plichta, 899 So.2d 1283, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So.2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

2001However, we note that in Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So.2d 1153 (Fla.1989), the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a life insurance requirement would amount to an award of postmortem alimony which is prohibited under Florida's common law: Upon the death of an insured, the insurance company, not the insured's estate, pays the insurance proceeds to the beneficiary.

2001However, Keith relied on Sobelman v. Sobelman, 516 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), which was reversed by the supreme court in Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So.2d 1153 (Fla.1989).

2023The court may hear additional evidence to make such findings.”); Karkhouff v. Robilotta, 309 So. 3d 229 , 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (holding that “[d]ue to the Final Judgment’s lack of factual findings on [the life insurance] issue, we reverse and remand for the trial court to ensure that the Final Judgment contains specific findings regarding: the special circumstances justifying the life insurance requirement, Former Husband’s insurability, the type and amount of life insurance required, and the cost of such a policy”); Pietras v. Pietras, 842 So. 2d 956, 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (allowing tria

2020See Jimenez v. Jimenez, 211 So. 3d 76, 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (requiring the trial court to make those findings on remand); Sager, 291 So. 3d at 970; Lopez v. Lopez, 780 So. 2d 164, 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (noting that “there may be an insurability question” because the former husband had previously had an artificial heart valve inserted).

2019A trial court, however, may not do so “without making factual findings regarding the necessity of such coverage.” Winney v. Winney, 979 So. 2d 396, 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“In order to support the life insurance requirement, the trial court must make specific evidentiary findings as to the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor's ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant such security.”).

2017See Sikora v. Sikora, 173 So.3d 1028, 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“[B]ecause the trial court failed to include the required findings, we reverse the life insurance requirement and remand for further proceedings”).

2016See Juchnowicz v. Juchnowicz, 157 So.3d 497, 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

2013See Milo v. Milo, 718 So.2d 343, 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“In imposing such a requirement, the trial court should consider its financial impact on the payor.”); see also Kremer v. Kremer, 595 So.2d 214, 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding that a trial court must consider the financial impact of imposing a life insurance requirement upon the obligated spouse).

2013See Milo v. Milo, 718 So.2d 343, 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“In imposing such a requirement, the trial court should consider its financial impact on the payor.”); see also Kremer v. Kremer, 595 So.2d 214, 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding that a trial court must consider the financial impact of imposing a life insurance requirement upon the obligated spouse).

2012“Such special circumstances include a spouse potentially left in dire financial straits after the death of the obligor spouse due to age, ill health and/or lack of employment skills, obligor spouse in poor health, minors living at home, supported spouse with limited earning capacity, obligor spouse in arrears on support obligations, and cases where the obligor spouse agreed on the record to secure an award with a life insurance policy.” Richardson v. Richardson, 900 So.2d 656, 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Alpha v. Alpha, 885 So.2d 1023, 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)).

2012“Such special circumstances include a spouse potentially left in dire financial straits after the death of the obligor spouse due to age, ill health and/or lack of employment skills, obligor spouse in poor health, minors living at home, supported spouse with limited earning capacity, obligor spouse in arrears on support obligations, and cases where the obligor spouse agreed on the record to secure an award with a life insurance policy.” Richardson v. Richardson, 900 So.2d 656, 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Alpha v. Alpha, 885 So.2d 1023, 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)).

2004See Moorehead v. Moorehead, 745 So.2d 549, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) Here, there were at least two special circumstances, such that the imposition of the life insurance requirement was not an abuse of discretion.