KAREN LEE ZUCKER, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT W. ZUCKER, 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.
Karen Lee Zucker appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, and Robert Zucker appeals an attorney's fees award. The court affirmed most points but reversed and remanded on the issue of medical insurance and child medical care provisions, which were absent from the judgment.
The court affirmed the attorney's fees award and most aspects of the judgment, but reversed and remanded the judgment to the extent it failed to address medical insurance and child medical care provisions, as required by Florida Statute § 61.13(b).
[1] A final judgment of dissolution of marriage must include provisions addressing the status of medical insurance for the minor child and the general responsibility for the…
[2] A court must inquire into the availability of medical insurance for a minor child and allocate responsibility for the child's medical care in its final judgment of dissol…
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“the final judgment failed to explain the status of any medical insurance reasonably available for the child as required by 61.13(b), Florida Statutes (1993), nor determine the responsibility for the child's medical care.”
Establishes the deficiency in the judgment that warranted reversal and remand
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves a dissolution of marriage between Karen Lee Zucker and Robert Zucker with a minor child. The final judgment of dissolution failed t…
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.
POLEN, Judge.
In case number 94-1153, Karen Lee Zucker appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. In case number 94r-1493, Robert Zucker appeals from a final order awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Karen Lee Zucker. We affirm all points on both appeals, with the exception of one point on Karen Zuckeris appeal.
The point warranting reversal involves the absence from the final judgment of dissolution of any provision addressing the status of any medical insurance for the minor child, or the general responsibility for the child's medical care. In Dehler v. Dehler, 648 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), this court similarly noted that the final judgment failed to explain the status of any medical insurance reasonably available for. the child as required by 61.13(b), Florida Statutes (1993)
, nor determine the responsibility for the child’s medical care. On remand this court ordered the trial court to inquire into the availability of medical insurance and in addition to allocate responsibility for the child’s reasonable medical expenses between the two parties. Id. at 821.
In accordance with our opinion in Dehler, we remand this case for the trial court to inquire into the availability of medical insurance, and to allocate responsibility for the child’s medical care. On remand, it is up to the trial court to decide if that determination can be made on the existing record or whether further evidence is needed.
SHAHOOD, J., and SPEISER, MARK A., Associate Judge, concur. . Section 61.13(b), Florida Statutes (1993), provides in pertinent part:
(b) Each order for child support shall contain a provision for health insurance for the minor child when the insurance is reasonably available. Insurance is reasonably available if either the obligor or the obligee has access at a reasonable rate to group insurance. The court may require the obligor either to provide health insurance coverage or to reimburse the obligee for the cost of health insurance coverage for the minor child when coverage is provided by the obligee. In either event, the court shall apportion the cost of coverage to both parties by adding the cost to the basic obligation determined pursuant to s. 61.30(6).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Roukes v. Tee Angel Roukes, 648 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Dehler v. Dehler, 648 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)