|
|
|
Dissipation of Living Expenses and Life Insurance Security for Support Obligations
© 2005 National Legal Research Group, Inc.
FLORIDA: Plichta v. Plichta, 899 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005).
The trial court erred by holding that the funds in two IRAs were dissipated by the husband, where they were spent for legitimate purposes while the case was pending. The trial court also erred by awarding to the husband the cash surrender value of certain life insurance policies, where the husband was required to maintain those policies in force to secure his child and spousal support obligations.
Following the entry of a divorce decree, the husband appealed that portion of the trial court's ruling which ascribed to him the value of $57,000 for two IRA accounts. The husband asserted that he had liquidated these accounts during the pendency of the dissolution proceedings and used the funds to pay for his support, living expenses, and some litigation costs. The appellate court agreed that the trial court had erred. Although recognizing that the accounts were marital property under the laws of equitable distribution, the court reasoned that as the husband had used these depleted marital assets for legitimate expenses during the course of the dissolution proceedings, and no allegations of misconduct had been made by the wife, the $57,000 should not have been attributed to the husband. The court reversed and ordered a remand to reconsider the equitable distribution scheme.
The husband also argued that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to have awarded to him the cash surrender value of several life insurance policies. The court below had ordered that the husband maintain these policies so as to secure his child support and alimony obligations. Because this was an "asset" he could neither benefit from nor access, he argued that the court should not have awarded the cash surrender value. The appellate court agreed that it was error to both distribute the cash surrender value of the policies and also direct that they be maintained as security for support obligations in such a manner that precluded the husband from utilizing their cash surrender value. The court declined however to find that the lower court had committed an abuse of discretion because it had failed to make specific findings when it ordered that the policies be maintained for the benefit of the wife and children. The court reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
Go to: Dissipation of Assets Category
Go to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page
| Featured Services | |
|
| The Research Center: (Divorce Cases of Interest) | Research Home | ||||
Find Case Law, Case Analysis, and Divorce Information...
| |||||
Copyright© 1996-2011. All rights reserved by Divorce Source, Inc.
Comments & Suggestions? or Recommend This Page to a Friend!