LARRY JIM BLACK, APPELLANT,
v.
MARSHA BLACK, 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.
In this dissolution of marriage appeal, the husband challenged the trial court's award of child support, alimony, and medical expense obligations as excessive. The appellate court affirmed the overall award as a proper balancing of equities but reversed and remanded to limit the husband's open-ended obligation to pay medical and hospitalization expenses.
The court held that the overall award is not an abuse of discretion and represents a proper balancing of equities given the wife's serious health condition, but remanded because the judgment improperly imposed unlimited medical and hospitalization expense obligations on the husband without specifying that they must be reasonable and necessary.
[1] A trial court's award of child support, alimony, and equitable distribution is not an abuse of discretion when based on a balancing of equities supported by logic and jus…
[2] A trial court may properly provide for the payment of medical and hospitalization expenses and insurance in a dissolution judgment, but these obligations must be limited…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“However, taking into consideration the wife's serious physical condition, we do not find the judgment to be an abuse of discretion, but rather find it to be based on a balancing of equities supported by logic and justification.”
Establishes that the overall award satisfies the abuse of discretion standard despite the substantial financial burden on the husband.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband, an engineer earning approximately $38,000 per year, was ordered to pay $500 monthly child support and $500 monthly permanent alimony, plu…
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 Modification Of Support Obligations cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution. Appellant-husband contends that the award, taken as a whole, is excessive.
The trial court directed the husband to pay child support of $500.00 per month, permanent periodic alimony of $500.00 per month, medical and hospitalization insurance and future medical and hospital expenses. As part of an equitable distribution, the wife was awarded the husband’s interest in their jointly owned residence through lump sum alimony and the husband was awarded certain other property as well as his IRA and pension fund. The wife also received $72,000.00 in a savings account which the court ruled was her separate property.
The wife has a substantial illness which has required numerous hospitalizations and major surgeries in recent years. Although her condition is presently stabilized, she continues to be disabled. The husband is an engineer with a present salary of approximately $38,000.00 per year. The wife is a teacher with a master’s degree, presently working on a doctorate.
The wife has received a larger percentage of their assets in addition to receiving substantial monthly payments and benefits which may be in excess of 40% of the husband’s net income. However, taking into consideration the wife’s serious physical condition, we do not find the judgment to be an abuse of discretion, but rather find it to be based on a balancing of equities supported by logic and justification. Tronconi v. Tronconi, 466 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1985); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Pepper v. Pepper, 388 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
We recognize that there may come a time when the husband may not be able to afford to pay the medical payments in addition to support and alimony. We also recognize that the wife has the ability to earn a substantial income if her health permits. In either of such events, there are ample remedies available to the appellant through modification.
This case is remanded, however, because the final judgment contains no limits on the appellant’s obligation to pay medical and hospitalization expenses. Although the trial court may properly provide for these payments, and for the payment of medical and hospital insurance, they must, at a minimum, be limited to those which are reasonable and necessary. Miller v. Miller, 466 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Thompson v. Thompson, 325 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Lyons v. Lyons, 208 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).
Therefore, the final judgment is reversed in part. We remand to the trial court to modify paragraphs 6 and 7 by limiting the husband’s potential liability in accordance with this decision. In all other respects the final judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Armstrong v. Faye Armstrong, 623 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…risdiction by the trial court provides an adequate limitation of those expenses and a forum for relief for either of the parties should the circumstances require.” Id. at 566);4 Kuharsky v. Kuharsky, 582 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA1991); Black v. Black, 490 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA1986). This award is reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to determine whether the past expenditures appellee claims were reasonable and necessary, to place appropriate words of limitation in the final judgment as to…
-
Halberg v. Halberg, 519 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…o. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (where wife unable to meet her expenses because of large medical bills, and husband enjoys enormous financial success, wife must be restored to the standard of living she experienced during the marriage); Black v. Black, 490 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (dissolution award in excess of 40% justified where wife is seriously ill); Pepper v. Pepper, 388 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (trial court did not abuse discretion in fixing amount of permanent alimony at almost half of husban…
-
Watford v. Watford, 605 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…th DCA 1989), we held that a limitation in the final judgment of “reasonable and necessary” medical expenses was an adequate limitation as either party could apply for relief from such expenses should the circumstances require it. In Black v. Black, 490 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), we remanded a final judgment to the trial court to include a limitation that medical expenses required to be paid by the husband must be “reasonable and necessary”. Likewise, on remand we direct that the trial court must limit t…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Tronconi v. Tronconi, 466 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1985)
- Helene Leslie Lyons v. Lyons, 208 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Miller v. Miller, 466 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Witten v. The Charter OAK Fire Ins. Co., 325 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Pepper v. Pepper, 388 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)