RICHARD A. HOLTAN, APPELLANT,
v.
PRISCILLA J. HOLTAN, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to award permanent periodic alimony but reversed the provision requiring the husband to pay all future medical expenses, finding it too open-ended. The case clarifies the limits on a former spouse's responsibility for future medical costs.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent periodic alimony. However, the provision requiring the husband to pay all future medical expenses not covered by insurance and premiums was an abuse of discretion because it was too open-ended.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent periodic alimony when the record does not affirmatively support the contention that the recipient spouse…
[2] A provision in a modification order requiring a party to pay all future medical bills not covered by insurance is too open-ended and subjects that party to unlimited fina…
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“Based upon the record before us we have concluded that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in awarding the wife permanent periodic alimony.”
Establishes the court's affirmation of the alimony award.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband appealed an order modifying a final judgment, specifically challenging the award of permanent periodic alimony and the requirement …
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 Permanent Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
The former husband has appealed from an order modifying the final judgment requiring him to pay permanent periodic alimony and to assume responsibility for all of the wife’s future medical expenses.
Based upon the record before us we have concluded that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in awarding the wife permanent periodic alimony. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Nowhere does the record affirmatively support the contention that the recipient spouse is ultimately capable of supporting herself. Cf. Contogeorgos v. Contogeorgos, 482 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Campbell v. Campbell, 432 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Caldwell v. Caldwell, 383 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Unlike the husband, we are unable to glean from the facts before us a portrait of the wife as a capable, young, and potentially self-sufficient wage-earner. The husband has correctly pointed out, however, that the following provision of the modification order cannot stand:
...the Respondent shall be responsible for payment of all medical bills currently pending and currently anticipated as a result of the impending surgery for the Petitioner. All future medical bills not covered by insurance and medical insurance premiums following said treatment shall be the responsibility of the Respondent.
We concluded in Angle v. Angle, 506 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), that a similar provision was too “open-ended” and subjected the husband to unlimited financial liability: See also Jones v. Jones, 493 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Richards v. Richards, 477 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). As we directed in Angle, the trial court on remand may require the husband to maintain health insurance, including the payment of premiums and deductible amounts. Furthermore, the court should retain jurisdiction to review future requests by the wife to recover other reasonable and necessary medical expenses not covered by insurance.
In all other aspects the order under review is affirmed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Armstrong v. Faye Armstrong, 623 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…ld that awards for future medical expenses should not be worded "all future,” etc.; those courts have reasoned that type of provision is too open-ended and would subject the paying spouse to unlimited financial liability. See e.g., Holtan v. Holtan, 528 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA1988), Angle v. Angle, 506 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA1987), and Jones v. Jones, 493 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA1986). In Brandenburg, we also noted conflict with Miller v. Miller, 466 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA1985); Richards v. Richards, 477 So.…
-
Marsh v. Marsh, 553 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…1986); Richards v. Richards, 477 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Miller v. Miller, 466 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Van Metre v. Van Metre, 551 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Perez v. Perez, 539 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Holtan v. Holtan, 528 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Angle v. Angle, 506 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); rev. denied, 513 So. 2d 1060 (Fla.1987); Black v. Black, 490 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Jordan v. Jordan, 389 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Peteler v. Peteler, 145 So. 2d…
-
van Metre v. van Metre, 551 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…hen it ordered him to “pay all reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred by the Wife which are not covered by insurance obtained through her employer.” Such an open-ended and unlimited financial liability is unenforceable. Holtan v. Holtan, 528 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Angle v. Angle, 506 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 513 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1987). We therefore reverse that portion of the final judgment. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. On remand, the trial court may require app…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Campbell v. Chalermsri V. Campbell, 432 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Richards v. Richards, 477 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Angle v. Angle, 506 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Baker v. State, 482 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Sharper Lee Jones v. Isabell A. Jones, 493 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Morris v. State, 493 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Roscoe Eugene Caldwell v. Caldwell, 383 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)