Aronoff v. Aronoff

• Citation: 355 So.3d 952
• Docket Number: 4D21-3305
• Decision Date: 15 February 2023
• Parties: Keith Martin ARONOFF, Appellant, v. Lara ARONOFF, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

355 So.3d 952

Keith Martin ARONOFF, Appellant,

v.Lara ARONOFF, Appellee.

No. 4D21-3305

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 15, 2023]

John J. Shahady of Shahady & Wurtenberger, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee.

Gross, J.

In this appeal of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, we affirm on all issues but one, involving the requirement that the Husband maintain life insurance policies with a total death benefit of $7 million. We also write to address the disposition of the college savings accounts.

The Life Insurance Policies

The evidence at trial disclosed that the Husband owned life insurance policies providing death benefits totaling $7 million.

The final judgment required the Husband to "maintain the premium payments(s) on the five insurance policies." The judgment designated the Wife as the "50% beneficiary of such life insurance policies covering the life" of the Husband until the couple's minor child reached his eighteenth birthday.

As the Husband argues, the trial court did not make any specific findings as to the availability and cost of the policies, the impact of such cost on the Husband's finances, or the circumstances requiring security for the Husband's financial obligations under the final judgment. At the time of the judgment, the parties’ son was about two years away from turning eighteen. The death benefit on the policies far exceeded the Husband's mandatory financial obligations to his son.

We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to make the requisite findings regarding the Husband's life insurance obligation. See Leyte-Vidal v. Leyte-Vidal , 350 So. 3d 79, 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) ("On remand, the trial court shall make the requisite findings regarding the Husband's life insurance obligation. The court may hear additional evidence to make such findings."); Karkhoff v. Robilotta , 309 So. 3d 229, 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (holding that "[d]ue to the Final Judgment's lack of factual findings on [the life insurance] issue, we reverse and remand for the trial court to ensure that the Final Judgment contains specific findings regarding: the special circumstances justifying the life insurance requirement, Former Husband's insurability, the type and amount of life insurance required, and the cost of such a policy"); Pietras v. Pietras , 842 So. 2d 956, 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (allowing trial court to receive additional evidence relating to cost of premiums and consider the financial impact on the payor).

The College Savings Accounts

At trial, the Wife testified that she opened and funded a Florida Prepaid College account and a 529 educational savings account for the parties’ son. She said that she had taken $60,000 out of their son's account to pay for the child's current private schooling.

In...