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.
The Fourth District affirmed that a former husband must pay his ex-wife's reasonable and necessary medical and dental expenses without a dollar cap, rejecting his argument for a fixed limitation.
A former husband's obligation to pay his ex-wife's reasonable and necessary medical and dental expenses is not limited by a dollar amount but rather by the standard of reasonableness and necessity, with the trial court retaining jurisdiction to address disputes.
[1] In a dissolution of marriage, a former spouse's obligation to pay the other spouse's reasonable and necessary medical and dental expenses is adequately limited by the rea…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a prior dissolution judgment, the trial court ordered the husband to pay the wife's medical and dental expenses including prescriptions, drugs, and…
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 Family Law cases and more on FLexlaw
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 husband’s liability to those expenses that are reasonable and necessary. We find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that appellant is liable for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred for prescriptions, drugs and medications, whether prescribed or not. We disagree with appellant’s argument that the amount of his liability for such expenses should be limited by a dollar amount. The term “rea-. sonable and necessary” and the retention of jurisdiction 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.
Accordingly, we affirm on the authority of Thompson v. Thompson, 325 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) and Brandenburg v. Brandenburg. We recognize that this decision conflicts with Miller v. Miller, 466 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Richards v. Richards, 477 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Jones v. Jones, 493 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Perez v. Perez, 539 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
AFFIRMED.
LETTS, J., concurs.
WARNER, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kremer v. Kremer, 595 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…ones, 493 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Richards v. Richards, ill So. 2d 620 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Miller v. Miller, 466 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). But see Blythe v. Blythe, 592 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Contra Brandenburg v. Brandenburg, 550 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The husband, citing Weisfeld v. We-isfeld, 545 So. 2d 1341 (Fla.1989), also contends that the trial court erred in failing to provide in the final judgment for a division of any proceeds from the wife’s pending claims against t…
-
Armstrong v. Faye Armstrong, 623 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…hether the trial court orders appellant to pay one-half of past incurred medical expenses or all future incurred medical expenses, the court must limit the award to those expenses which are “reasonable and necessary.” See Brandenburg v. Brandenburg, 550 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA1989) (“The term ‘reasonable and necessary’ and the retention of jurisdiction 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. a…
-
Watford v. Watford, 605 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…that it is error to fail to set such limits, see Marsh v. Marsh, 553 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Richards v. Richards, 477 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The approach of this district has been slightly different. In Brandenburg v. Brandenburg, 550 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th 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.…
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
- Miller v. Miller, 466 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Richards v. Richards, 477 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Witten v. The Charter OAK Fire Ins. Co., 325 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- 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)
- Perez v. Perez, 539 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Brandenburg v. Bettye J. Brandenburg, 425 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)