Florida Appeals Court Addresses Child Support Calculations And Life Insurance Requirements
Issues related to child support usually arise while conducting a divorce case in Florida, especially where there is an equal distribution of time between the children and parents under a well-developed parenting plan. Judges have to make careful considerations when deciding child support, taking into account the specific distribution of time-sharing and making sure that all statutory requirements are followed. In this article, we’ll discuss a case dealing with child support calculations based on various factors.
Background of the case
The couple was married for around nine years. The marriage produced two children. In 2020, the husband petitioned the court for a divorce, while the wife counter-petitioned. After a three-day hearing, the trial court made its final decision concerning several issues, including child support, equitable distribution, and others.
In calculating child support, the trial court used what was referred to as a 70/30 timesharing ratio. It also ruled that the husband should purchase life insurance to secure the obligation for the child support. Lastly, the trial court refused to categorize the promissory note as a marital liability arising from the husband’s employment signing bonus.
The appeal
The Third District Court of Appeal went on to analyze the issues surrounding the child support calculation. The court ruled that the final judgment entered by the trial court in regard to the child support calculation erroneously states that the parties share time equally with the children based on a 70/30 split when, in fact, the parenting plan gave the husband five overnight visits every two weeks while granting nine overnights to the wife in any two-week period. The ratio was thus closer to 65/35. Since the child support calculations depend significantly on how many overnights are attributed to each parent, the court ordered the trial court to recalculate child support based on the actual parenting plan.
Regarding life insurance, the Third District ruled that since Florida Statutes permits courts to impose requirements of life insurance policies, those provisions must be grounded in specific findings establishing the existence of those protections. In other words, courts must determine whether or not the necessities, availability, costs, and effects of the insurance policy make it appropriate for use in securing child support. The Third District ruled that the record failed to show any finding by the trial court that justified forcing the husband to purchase life insurance. The court remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration.
Finally, the Third District upheld the trial court’s decision regarding the signing bonus arrangement at Morgan Stanley. Namely, the husband received an upfront bonus, and he signed a promissory note requiring him to repay the bonus in annual installments. At the same time, the employer committed to paying annual bonuses exceeding the total amount of repayments under the promissory note. Since the husband was still employed, the appellate court sided with the trial court on this one.
Talk to a Tampa, FL, Divorce Lawyer Today
Faulkner Law Group, PLLC, represents the interests of Tampa residents during their divorce. Call our Tampa family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.
Source:
law.justia.com/cases/florida/third-district-court-of-appeal/2025/3d23-1277.html
