CLARENCE E. PAULEY, APPELLANT,
v.
SANDRA LOUISE PAULEY, 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 action, the appellate court reviewed the trial court's alimony award and support obligations regarding health insurance and life insurance premiums. The court affirmed the permanent periodic alimony award but partially reversed the health insurance provision to require that premiums be reasonable, and remanded the case to correct the judgment.
The court affirmed the permanent periodic alimony award as not constituting an abuse of discretion. The court reversed the health insurance provision to the extent it lacked a requirement that premiums be reasonable. The court found the life insurance issue moot because the wife agreed to pay those premiums, and remanded for judgment amendments.
[1] An award of permanent periodic alimony may be affirmed despite consuming a large percentage of a payor's income if it does not violate established legal dictates.
[2] A trial court is not required to set a specific monetary limit on health insurance coverage payments when the specific policy is already in existence and the amount is ea…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Considering the length of the marriage and the wife's health problems, we do not find the award of permanent periodic alimony to constitute an abuse of discretion.”
The court's standard for reviewing alimony awards and its affirmance of the permanent alimony in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClarence and Sandra Pauley were in a dissolution action. The trial court awarded permanent periodic alimony to the wife, ordered the husband to mainta…
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
PARIENTE, Judge.
The three issues presented by the husband in this dissolution action are the trial court’s award of permanent periodic alimony; the trial court’s requirement that the husband pay the wife’s health insurance coverage without a limitation on the amount; and the trial court’s requirement that the husband pay all premiums on the outstanding life insurance policies.
Considering the length of the marriage and the wife’s health problems, we do not find the award of permanent periodic alimony to constitute an abuse of discretion. Although the amount of alimony, when considered in connection with the husband’s other obligations, consumes a large percentage of the husband’s current income, we do not find the amount violates the dictates of Pastore v. Pastore, 497 So. 2d 635, 638 (Fla.1986). Further, the wife has agreed to pay the premiums on the outstanding life insurance policies, thereby mooting this appellate issue.
Concerning the issue of health insurance coverage, the trial court ordered, as part of the wife’s support, that the husband continue to cover the wife under his group health insurance plan through his employer. During the entire time the parties were separated, the husband had been paying for the wife’s health insurance coverage, as well as coverage for the entire family, through his group health plan. The husband asserts that the trial court erred in not placing a monetary limitation on the amount of the coverage. However, this court has specifically held that there is no requirement that the trial court set a specific limit on the amount of coverage where the amount is easily ascer-tamable because the specific policy is already in existence. See Blythe v. Blythe, 592 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The only limitation this court has placed on obligations to pay health coverage, where such coverage is already in existence, is the general limitation that the premiums be “reasonable.” See Watford v. Watford, 605 So. 2d 1313, 1315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
This is not a case where there was no preexisting health insurance coverage. Where there is no existing health insurance, the trial court must set some reasonable limitations and guidelines, such as the amount of the deductible and the extent of the coverage, because the requirement imposed is otherwise too open-ended. See, e.g., Guralnick v. Guralnick, 645 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
On remand, we direct that the judgment be amended in paragraph four to reflect the agreement of the parties that the wife shall be responsible for the premiums on the life insurance policies and that the judgment be further amended in paragraph seven to include the requirement that the amount of the premiums to be paid by the husband for the wife’s coverage through his employment be reasonable.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
GUNTHER, J., concurs.
STONE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.
STONE, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I dissent as to the award of alimony. In my judgment, the trial court considered the needs of the wife but failed to fully consider the husband’s ability to pay.
In all other respects, I fully concur in the majority opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lakin v. Lakin, 901 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…the trial court set a specific limit on the amount of coverage where the amount is easily ascertainable because the specific policy is already in existence,” there must be a general limitation that the premiums be “reasonable.” See Pauley v. Pauley, 652 So. 2d 488, 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Blythe v. Blythe, 592 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). On remand the trial court shall clarify this portion of the final judgment, imposing at the very least, the limitation that the premiums for the wife’s insurance coverag…
-
Walton v. Heni Walton, 657 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…for all premiums, deductibles, and uncovered medical insurance expenses of the minor children.” The husband argues, and the wife concedes, that the expenses should be limited to those that are “reasonable and necessary.” We agree. Pauley v. Pauley, 652 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). See Armstrong v. Armstrong, 623 So. 2d 1216, 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Watford v. Watford, 605 So. 2d 1313 (Fla 4th DCA 1992). On remand the judgment should be corrected in this regard. Finally, the husband challenges the porti…
-
Monas v. Monas, 665 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…fe. However, it was error for the trial court to order the husband to pay “all medical bills upon demand for the two minor children.” Any order to pay medical expenses should be limited to those that are “reasonable and necessary.” Pauley v. Pauley, 652 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Armstrong v. Armstrong, 623 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). On remand, this limitation should be included in any final judgment. Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pastore v. Pastore, 497 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1986)
- Watford v. Watford, 605 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Blythe v. Blythe, 592 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Guralnick v. Guralnick, 645 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)