Lathrop v. Lathrop
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JAMES C. LATHROP, Appellant, v. DIERDRA LATHROP, n/k/a DEIRDRA POSEY, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2D15-1768 Opinion filed April 22, 2016. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; John A. Schaefer, Judge. Dorothy F. Easley of Easley Appellate Practice PLLC, Miami, for Appellant. Allison M. Perry of Florida Appeals & Mediations, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee. CASANUEVA, Judge. James C. Lathrop appeals an amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Mr. Lathrop raises two issues on appeal: first, he contends that the trial court's award of permanent alimony was erroneous; and second, he argues that the trial court erred in requiring him to maintain a life insurance policy to secure the award of alimony. We find there was no error in the award of alimony and affirm the award. However, we conclude the trial court erred in requiring Mr. Lathrop to maintain a life insurance policy to secure the payment of permanent alimony. Paragraph sixteen of the amended final judgment reads in pertinent part: "As security for his alimony obligation, the Husband shall be required to maintain in full force and effect, at his sole expense, a life insurance policy with a face value death benefit as specified herein, with the Wife the sole designated beneficiary of such policy." The trial court set the face value of the death benefit as $600,000. This court has held that "[i]n the absence of special circumstances, a spouse cannot be required to maintain life insurance for the purpose of securing an alimony obligation." Solomon v. Solomon, 861 So. 2d 1218, 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (first citing Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); and then citing Pinion v. Pinion, 818 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). A final judgment of dissolution must set forth sufficient findings of special circumstances to support a requirement for life insurance. Busciglio v. Busciglio, 116 So. 3d 620, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (quoting Kearley v. Kearley, 745 So. 2d 987, 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)). In the present case, the amended final judgment does not set forth any special circumstances to justify the life insurance requirement, and we therefore must reverse that portion of the final judgment. See Juchnowicz v. Juchnowicz, 157 So. 3d 497, 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Affirmed in part; reversed in part. LUCAS and SALARIO, JJ., Concur. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
