HOWARD E. BRANDENBURG, APPELLANT,
v.
BETTYE J. BRANDENBURG, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A husband appeals a final judgment of dissolution challenging provisions regarding alimony, attorney's fees, property division, insurance beneficiary designations, and medical expense obligations. The appellate court affirms the alimony and attorney's fees awards but reverses portions of the property division and insurance provisions, and remands for modification of the medical expense obligation.
The court affirmed the alimony and attorney's fees awards as supported by evidence of need and disparate earning capacities. The court reversed the property award to the wife, directing on remand that specified items be awarded to the husband. The court reversed the insurance provision directing substitution of a policy actually in the record for the one referenced. The court reversed the unlimited medical expense obligation, directing the trial court to limit the husband's liability to reasonable and necessary expenses.
[1] A trial court's award of alimony and attorney's fees is supported by evidence of disparate earning capacities and the need for financial assistance.
[2] A trial court errs by awarding personal property to a party when the other party is entitled to that property and the entitlement is conceded.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“There is sufficient evidence in the record, including evidence of the disparate earning capacities of the parties and the wife's need for financial assistance, to support these awards.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing alimony and attorney's fees awards and affirms those awards in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court awarded the wife alimony and attorney's fees based on evidence of disparate earning capacitie…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Medical Expenses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution. On appeal the husband is challenging several provisions of the final judgment.
Initially, we find no error in the amount of alimony and attorney’s fees awarded by the trial court to the wife. There is sufficient evidence in the record, including evidence of the disparate earning capacities of the parties and the wife’s need for financial assistance, to support these awards. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
We do find error, however, as to several other aspects of the final judgment. During trial, and indeed on appeal, the wife conceded the husband’s entitlement to certain items of personal property. Despite this, the wife was awarded those items. This was error. Upon remand we direct the trial court to award the husband those items designated as items 2, 3, 4, 5, 9,10,11 and 15-24 in paragraph seven of the husband’s counterpetition. We also find that it was error for the trial court to direct the husband to make the wife the irrevocable beneficiary of a policy of insurance the existence of which is not reflected in the record. The husband agreed at trial to make the wife the irrevocable beneficiary of another policy that is referred to in the record. Upon remand we direct that the trial court substitute this policy for the one now referred to in the judgment. Lastly, we direct the trial court to limit the husband’s liability for the wife’s medical expenses to those expenses that are reasonable and necessary. The husband conceded at trial that he had the ability, and indeed, was willing, to secure insurance to provide for the wife’s future medical expenses. That being the case, we believe the trial court acted properly in making the husband responsible for the wife’s expenses, provided they are reasonable and necessary. Should the husband be unable to meet these expenses in the future because of an unanticipated increase in those expenses or a decrease in the husband’s ability to meet these expenses, it will be incumbent upon the husband to seek a modification of this provision.
Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur. BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing and/or Clarification, filed November 30, 1982, by Appellant is denied. See Thompson v. Thompson, 325 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brandenburg v. Bettye J. Brandenburg, 550 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…DELL, Judge. In Brandenburg v. Brandenburg, 425 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), this court, among other things, affirmed that part of the final judgment of dissolution which required the husband to pay the wife’s medical and dental expenses including prescriptions, drugs and medications and limited the husb…
-
Kuharsky v. Kuharsky, 582 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…t to reimbursement. With reference to such bills incurred prior to entry of judgment, we reverse and remand to permit the trial court to make a determination as to whether those expenditures were reasonable and necessary. Brandenburg v. Brandenburg, 425 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Finally, we reverse that aspect of the Amended Final Judgment holding that the wife is in need and the husband has the ability to pay sixty percent of the wife’s attorney’s fees. Such an award must be based upon evidence in the…
-
Kuharsky v. Kuharsky, 516 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…ailable to the trial court to achieve equity between these parties. Because we reverse, we do not treat the question of medical therapy payments except to note that any such award must [*1073] ultimately meet the test of Brandenburg v. Brandenburg, 425 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), as the final judgment must meet the test of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). REVERSED AND REMANDED. WALDEN, J., and WEBSTER, PETER D., Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Witten v. The Charter OAK Fire Ins. Co., 325 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)