Velaga v. Gudapati , 148 So. 3d 550 ( 2014 )

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
NAGABHUSHANAM VELAGA, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D13-2253
)
OOHA GUDAPATI, )
)
Appellee. )
)
Opinion filed October 17, 2014.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for
Hillsborough County; Nick Nazaretian,
Judge.
Lorena L. Kiely, Tampa, for Appellant.
Christina C. Mesa of Mesa Law, P.A.,
Tampa, for Appellee.
VILLANTI, Judge.
Nagabhushanam Velaga, the Former Husband, appeals the final judgment
dissolving his marriage to the Former Wife, Ooha Gudapati. On appeal, the Former
Husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) not considering the
child's best interests in its development of the parenting plan; (2) using old data to
determine the Former Husband's ability to pay child support; (3) failing to consider the
Former Husband's transportation costs associated with his timesharing in its
determination of child support payments; (4) ordering the Former Husband to secure the
child support award with a life insurance policy; (5) entering awards to the Former Wife
that cumulatively exhaust the Former Husband's ability to pay; and (6) ordering the
Former Husband to pay the Former Wife the value of her missing nonmarital jewelry.
We find merit only in the Former Husband's contention that it was improper for the trial
court to order him to procure and maintain life insurance and therefore reverse on this
issue alone. In all other respects, we affirm the final judgment without discussion.
Generally, the trial court has discretion to order the payor of child support
to maintain a life insurance policy in order to secure the award. § 61.13(1)(c), Fla. Stat.
(2012). However, the court's order must include findings on the cost of the insurance and
whether the obligor can afford it, and there must be special circumstances that would
necessitate such an order. See Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 834, 837 (Fla. 2d DCA
2002). Here, the trial court did not make any findings on whether the Former Husband
could afford life insurance, nor were there any findings of special circumstances that would
necessitate the Former Husband obtaining life insurance. Absent these findings, the trial
court committed reversible error when it ordered the Former Husband to procure a life
insurance policy as security for his child support payments. Hence, we must reverse for
these further proceedings.
On remand, if the trial court again obligates the Former Husband to procure
and maintain life insurance, it must make the required findings and specify when the life
insurance obligation will terminate. See Haydu v. Haydu, 591 So. 2d 655, 657 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1991).
-2-
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DAVIS, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.
-3-