Baker v. Baker, No. 4D99-1013
| Decision Date | 12 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D99-2403., No. 4D99-1013 |
| Citation | 763 So.2d 493 |
| Parties | Bruce A. BAKER, Appellant, v. Patricia W. BAKER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert J. Merlin of Merlin & Hertz, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellant.
Donald G. Criscuolo of Genet, Criscuolo & Milgrim, P.A., North Palm Beach, for appellee.
The husband raises several challenges in this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He claims that the court failed to equally divide the marital assets by not considering the tax effect of the distribution of those assets; erred in awarding permanent alimony and the determination of child support; erred in requiring the husband to secure his alimony and child support obligations to the wife; and erred in its award of attorney's fees to the wife. We affirm as to all issues except the requirement of insurance to secure the husband's obligations.
This was an eighteen year marriage, and at the time of the divorce the parties were in their early forties. Two minor children were born during the marriage. Throughout the marriage the husband was the main financial provider, and the wife worked part-time as a nurse while taking care of the children and the household. The husband's gross income exceeded $88,000, and the wife grossed approximately $24,000 per year. Although the husband testified that he had asked the wife to return to full-time work after the youngest child was born, the wife testified that her husband never complained about her reduced work schedule to take care of the children. Based upon the foregoing, the trial court awarded permanent alimony and child support to the wife, and we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making those awards. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1202-03 (Fla.1980)
.
We do, however, conclude that the court erred in requiring the husband to maintain life insurance to secure payment of child support and alimony. In the absence of special circumstances, a spouse cannot be required to maintain life insurance for the purposes of securing support obligations. See Moorehead v. Moorehead, 745 So.2d 549, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
. No special circumstances are present in this case. The husband is in good health, and the wife would not be left in dire economic straits upon the untimely death of the husband. See Richardson v. Richardson, 722 So.2d 280, 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Sasnett v. Sasnett, 679 So.2d 1265, 1268-69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
The husband complains that the trial court did not divide the marital assets equally because it failed to consider the greater tax consequences to him in the court's distribution plan. However, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Layeni v. Layeni
...See, e.g., Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So.2d 834, 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Pinion v. Pinion, 818 So.2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Baker v. Baker, 763 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); McDaniel v. McDaniel, 653 So.2d 1076, 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 477 So.2d 2, 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)......
-
Van Maerssen v. Gerdts, No. 4D19-133
...a spouse cannot be required to maintain life insurance for the purposes of securing support obligations." Baker v. Baker , 763 So. 2d 493, 494–95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Additionally,if a trial court orders a spouse to obtain life insurance, then it must make "specific findings as to the avail......
-
Karkhoff v. Robilotta
...is only reversed without remand when there are no special circumstances to warrant such a requirement. See Baker v. Baker , 763 So. 2d 493, 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (stating that no special circumstances justified requiring the former husband to maintain life insurance). Because that is not ......
-
Forgione v. Forgione
...a spouse cannot be required to maintain life insurance for the purposes of securing support obligations." Baker v. Baker, 763 So.2d 493, 494-95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Substantial competent evidence in the record supports the conclusion that the wife had the need to protect the alimony award a......
-
An update on Florida alimony case law: are alimony guidelines a part of our future? .
...3d DCA part-time 1998) job Bronson 23 years v. Bronson 793 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) Baker v. Baker 18 years early 40s $24,000 763 So. 2d 493 per year (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) Moorehead v. 17 years 43 $1000 net Moorehead per month 745 So. 2d 549 imputed (Fla. 4th DCA by trial 1999) court N......