Galstyan v. Galstyan
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6056
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Married 15 years, two minor children; husband started own business after selling furniture; wife stayed home and later worked as nanny/gymnastics instructor.
- Pre-judgment agreement: child support starts Nov 1, 2010, with $1,000 monthly for older child and $700 for younger; potential continuation past 18 if in high school with good faith graduation probability.
- Stipulation/Agreed Judgment Establishing Child Support ratified Oct 28, 2010, detailing total child support obligations and timing.
- Final Judgment of Dissolution awarded wife $5,000 monthly alimony for 16 years; arrearages $23,500 with lump-sum $12,500 then $500 monthly.
- Trial court ordered husband to obtain $1,000,000 life insurance and $1,000,000 bond to secure alimony and child support; separate provision required $100,000 life policy and $100,000 bond for child support.
- Court reverses due to lack of factual findings on ability to pay and appropriateness of security orders; remand for reconsideration of alimony, arrearage payment, and security provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alimony: trial court failed to make required factual findings on payor’s ability to pay. | Galstyan argues lack of findings on financial resources. | Galstyan contends court correctly determined need and ability to pay. | Abuse of discretion; remand for findings. |
| Arrearage payment plan: lack of factual findings on paying ability. | Galstyan asserts insufficient basis for repayment schedule. | Galstyan asserts plan appropriate given resources. | Reversible error; remand for proper findings. |
| Life insurance/bond: order to secure obligations improperly combines policies and bonds; misinterpretation of statutes. | Galstyan claims court erred in ordering both life insurance and bond. | Galstyan contends court could order one security measure. | Order reversed; court to tailor security and provide factual findings. |
| Excessive security: insurance/bond amount not appropriately tailored to total support obligation. | Galstyan argues $200,000 security exceeds obligation. | Galstyan contends security necessary. | Security not appropriately tailored; remand with corrected figures. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So.2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (requires factual findings on alimony when applying statutory factors)
- Segall v. Segall, 708 So.2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (needs-based consideration for permanent alimony)
- Lift v. Lift, 1 So.3d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (requires findings of the paying spouse’s resources)
- Alois v. Alois, 937 So.2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (abuse of discretion when no findings on ability to pay arrearages)
- Orsini v. Orsini, 909 So.2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (requires factual findings on ability to pay arrears)
- Davidson v. Davidson, 882 So.2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (life-insurance order justified only with demonstrated need and findings)
- Norman v. Norman, 939 So.2d 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (need and cost findings required when ordering life insurance)
- Lakin v. Lakin, 901 So.2d 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (excessive security when insurance exceeds obligation)