Gordon v. Gordon
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6771
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Husband and wife married 20 years; children ages 16 and 10 at trial; marital home about $600,000 and condo $325,000.
- Parties enjoyed a comfortable standard of living; children attended private school with extracurriculars.
- Husband earned over $200,000 annually plus ~ $55,000 military retirement; wife remained at home since 1995 due to health, no imputed income.
- Parties had shared parental responsibility with wife as primary residential custodian; private school maintained unless relocation or agreement.
- Trial court ordered $7,500 monthly permanent alimony and health insurance for wife; wife received 19.07% of husband’s military retirement; assets and debts equitably distributed.
- Court required husband to maintain $1,000,000 life insurance to secure alimony and child support; also allocated 61.47% of various expenses to husband and set child support at $1,712 monthly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether health insurance obligation lacks monetary cap. | Gordon argues lack of cap makes obligation improper. | Robertson requests ongoing coverage as part of support, but no cap discussed. | Remand to set amount/cap for health insurance; determine income impact. |
| Whether $1,000,000 life insurance to secure support is warranted. | Gordon challenges excessive, unaffordable amount without record support. | Robertson contends security by life insurance is appropriate. | Life insurance amount must be evidence-based and proportionally allocated to alimony and child support. |
| Whether husband should contribute to private school tuition and related expenses. | Gordon argues discretionary or excessive educational costs. | Robertson seeks continuation of private school costs given standard of living and best interests. | Approved; private educational expenses may be included when able to pay and aligned with standard of living and child's best interests. |
| Whether husband must contribute to extracurricular activities. | Gordon contends his pro rata share should be limited to agreed activities. | Robertson argues contributions for agreed activities should be shared. | Apply pro rata share only to agreed-upon activities; avoid unlimited imposition for non-consented activities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guralnick v. Guralnick, 645 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (reasonable contribution toward health-insurance premiums as part of support, with limits)
- Ginsburg v. Ginsburg, 610 So.2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (health-insurance obligation must have defined amount)
- Szemborski v. Szemborski, 530 So.2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (consider need and ability to pay for health costs)
- Inglett v. Inglett, 439 So.2d 1389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (court must assess cost/affordability of insurance securing obligations)
- Alpha v. Alpha, 885 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (misallocation of life-insurance to secure multiple obligations requires record support)
- McGinley v. McGinley, 678 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (allocate life-insurance designations for child vs. spousal support)
- Layeni v. Layeni, 843 So.2d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (life-insurance designation should be for the children)
- Kaiser v. Harrison, 985 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (private educational expenses may be awarded as part of child support)