STEPHEN SUKIL OH, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHELLE HEEDUK OH, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed the alimony award for medical expenses because the judgment failed to specify a dollar amount or cap on the husband's liability, requiring remand for reconsideration.
An alimony order requiring payment of a spouse's medical expenses must specify a dollar amount or total financial exposure to limit the paying spouse's liability.
[1] An alimony award requiring payment of a spouse's medical expenses must specify a dollar amount or total financial exposure to adequately limit the paying spouse's liabili…
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 intelligence“an order requiring such a payment of medical expenses must specify a dollar amount or total financial exposure in order to limit the liability of the paying spouse in relation to his or her ability to provide this item of support”
The court explained the requirement for specificity in medical expense alimony awards.
In a divorce proceeding, the final judgment required the husband to pay the wife's medical, hospital, health care, and prescription drug bills not cov…
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 Spousal Support cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Judge.
We find error only in the alimony award covering the wife’s medical expenses. The final judgment variously requires the husband to be responsible for the wife’s “medical/hospital/health care/drug bills not covered by insurance” and “all of the wife’s reasonable medical, surgical, hospital, health care and prescription drug bills” not covered by the comprehensive medical/hospital insurance plan the husband was required to provide. This court has consistently held an order requiring such a payment of medical expenses must specify a dollar amount or total financial exposure in order to limit the liability of the paying spouse in relation to his or her ability to provide this item of support. Marsh v. Marsh, 553 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Jones v. Jones, 493 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Richards v. Richards, 477 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Miller v. Miller, 466 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Simply limiting the liability to “reasonable” medical bills, as approved in Brandenburg v. Brandenburg, 550 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), does not adequately treat this issue. Accordingly, the medical expenses provision of the final judgment is reversed and remanded to the trial court for reconsideration.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
W. SHARP and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Warner v. Warner, 692 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…his type of support.”); Young v. Young, 600 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (husband’s insurance obligation must be limited to a specific sum commensurate with his current level of premium expense), review denied, 613 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1992); Oh v. Oh, 570 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (“Simply limiting the liability 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…
-
McDANIEL v. McDANIEL, 653 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…tly found that an order requiring a payment of medical expenses must specify a dollar amount or total financial exposure in order to limit the liability of the payor spouse in relation to his or her ability to provide this type of support. Oh v. Oh, 570 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Thus, a limitation on deductible amounts and optical expenses incurred by the children needs to be set by the trial court which would then (with the cost of health insurance, if any) state the former husband’s “total financial…
-
Todesco v. Todesco, 583 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…k court remanded for further proceedings citing Santacroce v. Santacroce, 347 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) and Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). With regard to the unstated cost of the child’s health insurance, the court in Oh v. Oh, 570 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), reversed the section of the final judgment requiring the husband to pay the wife’s medical bills not covered by insurance, noting that such a requirement must specify a total financial exposure “in order to limit the liability o…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Marsh v. Marsh, 553 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Brandenburg v. Bettye J. Brandenburg, 550 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- 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)