JIM PATTERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIA EUGENIA CUERVO, 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.
Jim Patterson appeals a paternity judgment requiring him to pay half of uncovered medical expenses and attorney's fees for the mother. The Florida appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's orders.
The appellate court affirmed both the medical expense obligation and the attorney's fee award. The medical expense provision is not an open-ended obligation but rather requires equal sharing of reasonable and necessary expenses, with Patterson entitled to seek modification if circumstances change.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees when its findings satisfy the requirements of Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. …
[2] A provision for sharing uncovered medical expenses is not an impermissible open-ended award when it specifies a division of responsibility between parents, implicitly req…
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“This provision does not order the Father to pay all uncovered medical expenses. Rather, the expenses are to be shared equally by the parents.”
Establishes that the judgment's medical expense obligation is not open-ended but requires equal sharing between parents
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJim Patterson was determined to be the father of a child in a paternity action brought by Maria Eugenia Cuervo. The trial court ordered Patterson to p…
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 Paternity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jim Patterson appeals a final judgment of paternity asserting, inter alia, that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay one-half of the uncovered future medical expenses of the child, and in awarding the mother attorney’s fees. We affirm.
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees. The court’s findings satisfy the Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985) requirements. See Rohlfs v. Rohlfs, 666 So. 2d 568, 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (fee award reversed because order devoid of findings delineating hourly rate or hours reasonably expended); Home Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, 648 So. 2d 291, 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (same). Moreover, the mother’s attorney met her burden of substantiating the award by competent evidence. Mason v. Reiter, 564 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
We also affirm the court’s order that the father pay one-half of the child’s health insurance deductible and medical expenses not covered by health insurance. The father argues that the award is flawed as an open-ended award of uncovered medical expenses. However, the specific provision in the final judgment reads as follows:
6. [Father] shall be responsible to supply medical insurance for the minor child and [Mother] must use the services so provided by said insurance. Any deductible or uncovered medical expenses shall be equally shared as follows: The [Mother] shall pay the first $25.00 with the [Father] paying the next $50.00 and the [Mother] pays the next $25.00. The court finds that neither has the means to pay more at this time.
This provision does not order the Father to pay all uncovered medical expenses. Rather, the expenses are to be shared equally by the parents. Imami v. Imami, 584 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). It is implicit in the court’s award that the expenses be reasonable and necessary, particularly in view of the court’s recognition and consideration of the parties’ limited financial abilities. Monas v. Monas, 665 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Fitch v. Fitch, 643 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Armstrong v. Armstrong, 623 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Imami. But see McDaniel v. McDaniel, 653 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (error to order spouse to pay uncovered medical expenses without setting specific dollar amount of liability). Additionally, the father is entitled to seek modification of this support award should this become necessary. See Brandenburg v. Brandenburg, 550 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Father’s remaining points lack merit.
Affirmed as corrected.1
. The judgment is hereby corrected to reflect that the father is ordered to pay $118 monthly for child care expenses, as the court announced at the final hearing, not $100, as stated in the final judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. Juanza Perkins and John R. Perkins, 723 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…1990); Braden v. Braden, 436 So. 2d 914, 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Alternatively, Thomas argues that the fees and costs awarded by the trial court were excessive. Our standard of review on this issue is abuse of discretion. See Patterson v. Cuervo, 683 So. 2d 205, 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Elliot v. Pallotti, 654 So. 2d 1300, 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). We note, however, that the record before us does not contain a transcript of the hearing that was held to determine the amount of fees and costs. In the absence…
-
Girten v. Andreu, 698 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…rt’s declaration that the total fees and costs expended in this case, by both parties, are “shocking,” we can find no abuse of discretion in the award. The mother met her burden of substantiating the award by competent evidence, Patterson v. Cuervo, 683 So. 2d 205, 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), and the court properly considered all the factors necessary to “provide justice and ensure equity between the par [*889] ties.” Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 700 (Fla.1997). As stated in Rosen, “it is not necessary that on…
-
Hill v. Hill, 706 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ered nonelective medical expenses. In the case before us, we view the questioned provision to apply only to non-elective reasonable and necessary medical expenses, and we modify the amended final judgment to so provide. See also Patterson v. Cuervo, 683 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Except as modified herein, this amended final judgment and order of contempt are affirmed. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. COBB and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
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
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Mason v. Reiter, 564 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Armstrong v. Faye Armstrong, 623 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- McDANIEL v. McDANIEL, 653 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Simmons v. State, 584 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Brandenburg v. Bettye J. Brandenburg, 550 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Rohlfs v. Rohlfs, 666 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Monas v. Monas, 665 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Home Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, 648 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Fitch v. Fitch, 643 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)