Zvida v. Zvida
103 So. 3d 1052
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Married in 1994; petition for dissolution filed in 2009; two children born in 1997 and 1999.
- Wife was not employed during the 16-year marriage; husband worked as a painting contractor.
- Trial court awarded wife durational alimony of $1,500/month for 14 years and ordered husband to maintain a $50,000 life insurance policy for alimony security.
- Trial court also required husband to pay $656/month child support and $100/month toward $1,800 arrears, and to purchase at least $150,000 in life insurance to secure child support.
- Court valued a bank account for distribution at $117,315, though its value later stood at $3,284; court found dissipation but failed to account properly.
- On appeal, husband challenges life-insurance requirements and treatment of depleted assets; court affirms on other issues and reverses/remands on the first two issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether life insurance to secure alimony and child support was proper | Husband argues lack of findings and improper beneficiary designation. | Wife argues court properly used life insurance as security for support. | Reversed for lacking findings; remand for proper evidentiary determinations. |
| Whether depleted assets were properly included in equitable distribution | Husband contends the depleted bank balance should not be attributed as an asset. | Wife contends asset should be considered in distribution. | Reversed for improper inclusion of depleted asset; remand for correct accounting. |
| Whether the trial court erred in scheduling telephone contact and therapy for the children with the husband | Husband argues for scheduled contact/therapy requirements. | Wife contests or does not appeal the scheduling terms. | Without merit; affirmed. |
| Whether the distribution of real property was correct | Husband challenges allocation of real property. | Wife defends the distribution scheme. | Without merit; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Konsoulas v. Konsoulas, 904 So.2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (trial court may order life insurance; requires evidentiary findings)
- Foster v. Foster, 83 So.3d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (requires findings on availability and cost of insurance and ability to pay)
- Layeni v. Layeni, 843 So.2d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (naming beneficiary in insurance must be proper to secure support)
- Tillman v. Altunay, 44 So.3d 1201 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (assets depleted during dissolution generally not included in distribution)
- Bush v. Bush, 824 So.2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (dissipation of assets requires specific findings)
- Roth v. Roth, 973 So.2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (intentional misconduct required for including dissipated assets)
- Romano v. Romano, 632 So.2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (intentional dissipation shown by use of funds for own benefit unrelated to marriage)