CHESTER C. SZEMBORSKI, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
JANET J. SZEMBORSKI, 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 Florida dissolution case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets and permanent alimony award in a long-term marriage, but reversed the requirement that the former husband provide equivalent health insurance coverage without a specified monetary amount, and remanded for the trial court to establish a reasonable set sum for medical insurance premiums.
The trial court erred in failing to set a specific amount for health insurance coverage. A former husband may be ordered to pay a reasonable sum for medical insurance premiums as part of an alimony award, but such award must be reasonable in amount and must meet the criteria of need and ability to pay. Where parties are competent and able and conflict exists, it is preferable to require the obligor spouse to pay a set sum and let the receiving spouse obtain their own insurance.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in awarding marital assets and permanent alimony in long-term marriages.
[2] A trial court may order a former husband to pay a reasonable sum for medical insurance premiums for a former wife as part of an alimony award.
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“It is well established that a trial court may order a former husband to pay a reasonable sum for medical insurance premiums for a former wife as part of an alimony award.”
Establishes the legal principle that medical insurance premiums can be awarded as part of alimony, with the key requirement that the amount be reasonable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChester and Janet Szemborski were parties to a long-term marriage. The trial court entered a dissolution judgment that included equitable distribution…
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 Long-Term Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Chief Judge.
This dissolution judgment falls within the broad discretion of the trial judge in making an award of marital assets by way of equitable distribution and in awarding permanent alimony in a long-term marriage. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). However, we agree with appellant that the trial court erred in failing to set an amount which the former husband must pay for equivalent medical insurance coverage for the former wife. See Miller v. Miller, 466 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Inglett v. Inglett, 439 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Paragraph 22 of the final judgment provides:
22. Health Insurance. The husband shall at his expense provide health insurance coverage for the wife equivalent to the existing health insurance coverage provided by Chalbama, Inc. Said health insurance coverage shall be maintained for the wife until the wife remarries or the husband or wife dies, whichever shall first occur. Within thirty (30) days after the date of this judgment, the husband shall provide the wife with such health insurance policy with proof that the premiums have been paid and he shall thereafter provide the wife with all replace ment policies and endorsements and proof of premium payments to inform the wife that such insurance is in force.
It is well established that a trial court may order a former husband to pay a reasonable sum for medical insurance premiums for a former wife as part of an alimony award. Inglett, supra. Cyphers v. Cyphers, 373 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). However, such an award (absent an agreement by the parties) must be reasonable in amount and must, when added to other alimony awards, meet the criteria of need and ability to pay under current circumstances. Further, we suggest where, as in this case, there is apparently considerable conflict and bad feelings, and both parties are competent and able, it would be less onerous to simply require the obligor spouse to pay a set sum to the other and let the receiving spouse obtain his or her own medical insurance.
Accordingly, we strike paragraph 22 from the judgment; affirm the balance; and remand to the trial court for resolution of the medical insurance issues in light of this opinion.
AFFIRMED as modified; REMANDED.
DANIEL, J., concurs.
COBB, J., concurs in part, and dissents in part with opinion.
COBB, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in affirmance of the judgment with the exception of the trial court’s requirement that the husband obtain and maintain health insurance coverage for the wife. That requirement is not merely onerous; it is void. There is no authority, absent agreement of the parties, for a court to order one spouse to perform such personal services for the other. As noted in the majority opinion, such cases as In-glett and Cyphers simply affirm orders to pay money.
In the instant case, the wife is perfectly able, both physically and financially, to obtain her own insurance. She was awarded well over one-half million dollars in marital assets and lump-sum alimony, together with $2,000.00 per month permanent alimony. I would simply strike Paragraph 22 and otherwise affirm without remanding to the trial court for further consideration of a non-issue that should not have been considered in the first place.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Warner v. Warner, 692 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…bility to ‘reasonable’ medical bills ... does not adequately treat this issue.”); Marsh v. Marsh, 553 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversible error not to set monetary limit on the costs of the ordered health insurance); Szemborski v. Szemborski, 530 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (trial court erred in failing to set an amount which the former husband must pay for insurance coverage). The wife’s concern regarding the fairness of limiting the husband’s liability for unreim-bursed medical expenses while lea…
-
Moore v. Moore, 543 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…DCA 1985); Marlow v. Marlow, 464 So. 2d 717, 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The trial court has a very broad ambit of discretion in resolving issues raised in dissolution cases. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Szemborski v. Szemborski, 530 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). The record in this case establishes that the parties were married for twenty-two years, and that they were blessed with two children, both of whom were over eighteen years of age when the dissolution proceedings were filed. The…
-
Lane Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher, 656 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…the former husband to contribute to his former wife’s COBRA medical insurance coverage where the record evidence clearly establishes his present inability to pay the same. Marsh v. Marsh, 553 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Szemborski v. Szemborski 530 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). We therefore affirm. Reversed and remanded with instructions in part and affirmed in part. .The former husband also attempted to earn extra money through the sale of Amway products, but there is no record evidence that this ve…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- Cooper v. Dade Cnty., 373 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Baptist Hosp. OF Miami & Corporate Grp. Serv. v. Porter, 439 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Inglett v. Inglett, 439 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)