Foster v. Foster
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10653
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Final judgment dissolved marriage and resolved financial issues between James Foster (husband) and Cynthia Foster (wife).
- Trial court required husband to maintain life insurance through his employer with wife as beneficiary to secure alimony.
- Court acknowledged authority to require life insurance but required explicit findings on availability, cost, obligor's ability to pay, and special circumstances.
- Court failed to make the necessary factual findings tying insurance to the alimony obligation and to the security purpose.
- Court also awarded wife attorney's fees against husband, despite financial parity between parties.
- On appeal, the Fifth District affirmed some rulings but reversed the life-insurance provision and the fee award and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life insurance as alimony security | Foster argues life insurance requirement lacks necessary findings. | Foster contends requirement is proper if supported by findings and related to obligation. | Reverse life-insurance provision; remand for required findings. |
| Attorney's fees against husband | Wife seeks fees based on need and ability to pay. | Husband asserts parity and no need to shift fees. | Reverse fee award; remand for reconsideration consistent with parity and financial factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (requires explicit findings on insurance for security of obligation)
- Plichta v. Plichta, 899 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (principles for life insurance security in alimony cases)
- Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (insurance amount must relate to the obligation)
- Beharry v. Drake, 52 So. 3d 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (excessive life insurance amounts are improper)
- Smith v. Smith, 912 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (distinguishes proportional distribution of insurance proceeds)
- Zangari v. Cunningham, 839 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (case handling of insurance as security for obligations)
- Conlan v. Conlan, 43 So. 3d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (economic impact of fees on equitable distribution)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (guidance on equitable distribution and fees considerations)
- Matajek v. Skowronska, 927 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (fees awarded only when need and ability support)
- Derrevere v. Derrevere, 899 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (parity considerations in fee decisions)
- Price v. Price, 951 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (evaluate financial need and ability to pay for fees)