Beharry v. Drake
2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 20140
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Y ougraj Beharry (father) appeals a final paternity judgment.
- Trial court ordered the father to secure child support with a $100,000 life insurance policy naming the mother as beneficiary.
- Beharry argued the trial court impermissibly adopted the mother’s proposed judgment verbatim, citing Perlow v. Berg-Perlow.
- The court noted proposed judgments were submitted by both parties and six days elapsed before entry of final judgment.
- The court held the life insurance amount exceeded the father’s total child support obligation and reversed that portion, remanding to cap coverage at the obligation amount.
- The court affirmed the time-sharing plan, found no abuse of discretion, and noted a typographical error in N.B.’s birth date requiring correction on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the judgment produced by adopting the other party’s draft an error? | Beharry argues Perlow | ||
| mandates independence of judicial judgment. | Beharry contends the court erred by adopting verbatim; court distinguishable. | Perlow fact pattern not present; no reversible error. | |
| Is the $100,000 life insurance requirement excessive to secure child support? | Beharry claims amount exceeds his obligation (~$73,000). | Mother argues remaining difference is minimal and acceptable. | Trial court erred; cap life insurance to the amount of the obligation. |
| Did the time-sharing order show abuse of discretion? | Beharry challenges the custody arrangement. | Arrangement reflected alternating weekends and additional access; within discretion. | No abuse of discretion. |
| Should the typographical error in N.B.'s birth date be corrected? | Not addressed as a dispositive issue beyond error present. | Error acknowledged; remand to correct. | Remand for correction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So.2d 383 (Fla. 2004) (verbatim proposed judgments risk appearance of no independent judgment)
- Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So.3d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (life insurance must relate to extent of obligation)
- Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So.2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (relation of insurance to child support obligation)
- Burnett v. Burnett, 995 So.2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (standard of review for custody/time-sharing decisions)
- Rashid v. Rashid, 35 So.3d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (court should include findings on availability and cost of insurance)
- Smith v. Smith, 39 So.3d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for custody issues)