Carbonell v. Carbonell, 92-1196

• Decision Date: 11 May 1993
• Docket Number: No. 92-1196,92-1196
• Citation: 618 So.2d 326
• Parties: 18 Fla. L. Week. D1219 Alberto M. CARBONELL, Appellant, v. Lourdes CARBONELL, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 326

618 So.2d 326

18 Fla. L. Week. D1219

Alberto M. CARBONELL, Appellant, v. Lourdes CARBONELL, Appellee.

No. 92-1196.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Third District.

May 11, 1993.

Helman, Young & Black, Nard S. Helman, Coral Gables, Alberto M. Carbonell, for appellant.

Stickney & Sutter, Howard T. Sutter, Key Biscayne, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ.

GODERICH, Judge.

The husband, Alberto M. Carbonell, appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm, in part, and reverse and remand, in part.

The parties were married on April 8, 1988. The parties had one child, who was born, April 18, 1989. The husband is a self-employed attorney who practices commercial litigation. The husband lost a major client in April, 1991, when First Union National Bank purchased Florida National Bank. The husband presented evidence that his loss of income amounted to $25,000.00 per year. The husband presented a closing statement showing his total gross income for 1991 was $52,996.67. The wife is an assistant vice president at a bank and earned $36,000.00 in 1991.

The trial court entered a final judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties on May 1, 1992. The trial court concluded that the husband had the ability to pay child support. The final judgment under appeal states, in part:

It is the finding of this Court that the Husband has more income which must properly be included in the income that he reflects on his Financial Affidavit. At the very least, under the guidelines, the monies which the Husband acknowledges as reimbursed expenses and in-kind payments which he receives from his law practice must be included in the Husband's income thereby providing the Husband a total net monthly income of at least $2,646.59 and 51% of guideline support compared to the Wife's net monthly income of $2,521.94.

The trial court ordered him to pay the sum of $445.30 per month in child support plus an additional $188.70 per month (51% of the actual cost) for after school care.

The wife was required to provide major medical and hospitalization insurance for the child and the husband was required to maintain a life insurance policy in the amount of $100,000.00 naming the wife as irrevocable beneficiary, as guardian for the child, for so long as he is required to pay child support. Both the child support and medical coverage provision of the final judgment use the following language: "Until the child graduates from high school, becomes nineteen years of age while still attending high school, dies, marries or becomes self-supporting whichever first occurs."

The husband raises several issues regarding the amount of child support awarded. The trial court has broad discretion in determining the amount of child support to be awarded. Leone v. Leone, 577 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Culp v. Culp, 413 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Droubie v. Droubie, 379 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). We find that there is competent evidence in the record to support the award of child support and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting the amount of child support.

Next, the husband contends that the trial court erred in directing him to maintain a $100,000.00 life insurance policy naming the wife, as the guardian for the child, as the irrevocable beneficiary for as long as he is responsible to pay child support. The trial court has broad discretion on whether to require a party to maintain a life insurance policy to secure the child's support. Bosem v. Bosem, 279 So.2d 863 (Fla.1973); Sec. 61.13(1)(b)2, (c), Fla.Stat. (1991).

In the instant case, the husband admitted during oral argument that he might not continue practicing law. This is a special circumstance that dictates the necessity for a life insurance policy. Frechter v. Frechter, 548 So.2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Waskin v. Waskin, 346 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Unlike the fathers in Frechter and Waskin, we cannot say that the husband will continue to earn money in his profession. For this reason, we find that the trial court properly required the husband to keep a life insurance policy and thereby...