Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Alimony
When alimony is awarded in Florida, a court may also require that the party paying the alimony obtain a life insurance policy that names the ex-spouse as a beneficiary. This is an attempt to protect the receiving spouse’s alimony payments. Before a court can order the maintenance of such a policy, findings must be made as to special circumstances that support the requirement, and as to the availability and cost of the insurance along with the payor’s ability to pay. In the case Manko v. Manko, 5D18-1445 (Fla. 5th DCA May 10, 2019), the former husband appealed the trial court’s decision to deny his motion to reconsider the life insurance requirement.
The former husband was ordered to pay alimony and to obtain a life insurance policy to secure the award. After entry of the final judgment, the former husband attempted to obtain the policy as ordered, but he was denied coverage by three different companies due to a medical condition. He therefore sought to re-open the case as to the insurance issue under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530 which allows a party to request re-opening of a final judgment to rehear an issue that needs resolution. The trial court denied the former husband’s motion for a new hearing.
The former husband appealed and the appellate court sided with him. In reversing the trial court’s order, the appellate court held, “‘Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(a) enables a trial court to evaluate matters that it did not consider prior to judgment, and to correct any error if the trial court becomes convinced that it has erred.’ Byrne v. Byrne, 128 So. 3d 2, 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (citation omitted). ‘Generally, to reopen a case, a party must establish two evidentiary predicates.’ Gulf Eagle, LLC v. Park E. Dev., Ltd., 196 So. 3d 476, 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). ‘The first predicate is that the presentation of evidence will not unfairly prejudice the opposing party and, second, that reopening will serve the best interests of justice.’ Id. (citations omitted). On this record, there is no indication that Appellee would suffer any prejudice were the trial court to reopen the evidence on this limited issue. Therefore, given Appellant's allegation that he discovered it was impossible for him to obtain life insurance after rendition of the final judgment, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant's motion to reopen the evidence.”
Life insurance may not be easy to obtain for a divorcing party. This is why before a party is ordered to obtain life insurance, he or she should speak to a Miami divorce attorney to understand what arguments should be set forth in his or her defense.