Can a Judge Require “Security” for Alimony in a Florida Divorce Case?

A court may protect the recipient of an alimony award by requiring the payer to take out a life insurance policy (or bond) on themselves as a form of security for the alimony award. Florida law expressly authorizes such orders when the court makes “specific findings that there are special circumstances that warrant” such a requirement.

Florida Appeals Court Reverses $700,000 Contempt Judgment Against Former Husband

The statute does not elaborate on what qualifies as “special circumstances.” Florida appellate courts generally take it to mean a situation where the recipient would be left in dire financial straits should the payor die suddenly. For example, in a 1999 decision, Kearley v. Kearley, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal held that it was proper to require a life insurance policy to secure an alimony award “when the recipient spouse is disabled, elderly, or has such limited employment skills that the death of the former spouse would cause the survivor to depend upon welfare or the generosity of others.”

In a more recent case, Marin v. Marin, the Second District considered whether a party’s failure to purchase a life insurance policy qualified as contempt of court. In this case, the former husband and former wife divorced in 2017. Under the terms of a marital settlement agreement (MSA) negotiated by the parties, the former husband agreed to pay the former wife $14,000 per month in alimony. He further agreed to secure this obligation by taking out a $700,000 life insurance policy, naming the former wife as beneficiary.

While the former husband made all required alimony payments, he did not take out the life insurance policy. This prompted the former wife to file a motion in circuit court to hold the former husband in contempt. At a hearing, the former husband explained that he could not obtain life insurance due to his medical condition. The judge found that reasoning inadequate and imposed a monetary sanction of $700,000 against the former husband.

The Second District held that was improper. The sanction effectively “sought to impose a monetary sanction that was compensatory in nature.” That is, the judge ordered the former husband to pay his former wife an amount of money equal to the value of the life insurance policy that he failed to maintain. But such compensation was inappropriate, the Second District said, as the wife suffered no loss. Any loss would only occur when the former husband died. The appellate court therefore vacated the $700,000 sanction but otherwise allowed the judge’s contempt order to stand.

Contact a Miami Alimony Lawyer Today

Resolving financial issues in a divorce, including spousal support, requires a careful examination of a number of factors. Our Miami alimony lawyers can represent your interests and advise you of your rights. Contact Hamilton O’Neill today at 305-371-3788 to schedule a consultation with a member of our team.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7799022346440192373