Packo v. Packo
120 So. 3d 232
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Marriage between Richard G. Packo (husband/appellant) and Kimberly S. Packo (wife) was dissolved by a trial court final judgment.
- Appellant appealed portions of the final judgment concerning equitable distribution and an order requiring life insurance as security for support obligations.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviews dissolution judgments for abuse of discretion but requires statutorily/judicially mandated findings.
- The trial court’s final judgment failed to state valuations for the marital home and other distributed properties.
- The judgment also ordered the husband to maintain a $500,000 life insurance policy naming the wife as irrevocable beneficiary, without the specific findings required to support such a requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable distribution — required asset valuations | Wife: distribution appropriate as entered | Husband: judgment lacked required asset valuations for review | Reversed and remanded for trial court to state individual valuations and identify marital liabilities per §61.075(3) |
| Life insurance as security for support | Wife: $500,000 policy is proper security for alimony/child support | Husband: court failed to make required findings on availability/cost, ability to pay, and relation to obligation | Reversed and remanded for court to reconsider or make specific evidentiary findings; amount must relate to support obligation |
Key Cases Cited
- Vitalis v. Vitalis, 799 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (standard of review and limits on discretion in dissolution cases)
- Cook v. Cook, 714 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (failure to make statutorily required valuations is reversible error)
- Holmes v. Holmes, 709 So.2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (requiring specific findings for equitable distribution)
- Calderon v. Calderon, 730 So.2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (reversal where final judgment omitted values for assets)
- Foster v. Foster, 83 So.3d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (life insurance/security for support requires findings on availability, cost, ability to pay, and special circumstances)
- Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So.3d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (same evidentiary findings required for insurance security)
- Schoditsch v. Schoditsch, 888 So.2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (failure to make required findings is reversible error)
- Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So.2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (insurance amount must relate to the support obligation)