CECILIA VELASQUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
CARLOS A. RUEDA, 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's order requiring the mother to reimburse the father for the child's past medical expenses, holding that the mother was deprived of due process when she was not allowed to testify at the hearing on the father's reimbursement motion.
The trial court's order was reversed because the mother was deprived of due process when she was not allowed to testify at the hearing. On remand, the trial court must consider admissible evidence and determine whether the expenses constituted 'major' decisions requiring joint approval under the settlement agreement before ordering reimbursement.
[1] A trial court deprives a party of due process by preventing them from testifying at a hearing concerning financial obligations.
[2] A settlement agreement incorporated into a dissolution of marriage judgment may require parents to jointly approve "major" medical decisions for a child.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 settlement agreement provides that each parent must jointly approve "major" medical, dental, institutional, psychiatric or other care, and further provided that, should the parents not agree, the issue should be submitted to the court for approval.”
Establishes the contractual framework governing medical decisions and cost-sharing between the parents
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties executed a settlement agreement in their divorce that required joint approval of 'major' medical and psychological care for their minor ch…
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 Settlement Agreement Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issue in this case involves the mother’s responsibility for medical and psychological expenses incurred by the father for the benefit of the parties’ minor child as established by a settlement agreement executed by the parties and incorporated into their dissolution of marriage judgment. The settlement agreement provides that each parent must jointly approve “major” medical, dental, institutional, psychiatric or other care, and further provided that, should the parents not agree, the issue should be submitted to the court for approval. According the terms of the agreement, each parent is also financially responsible to pay half of all “other” medical, psychological, hospital and dental expenses not covered by insurance.
The father filed a motion in the circuit court to collect from the mother her share of the child’s past medical expenses dating back to a period shortly after the parties’ divorce. During the hearing on the motion, the mother objected to some of the bills because there was no showing that she had agreed to the medical treatment before it was provided. The mother particularly objected to bill for psychological treatment because she believed such treatment was sought to support the father’s effort to change custody. The court, while stating that it understood her “objection,” ordered the mother to reimburse the father for the requested medical expenses.
The trial court did not allow the mother to testify during the hearing. By so doing, the trial court deprived the mother of her right to due process.
Accordingly, we must reverse the reimbursement order.
The trial court’s order requiring the mother to reimburse the father for past medical expenses is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings. On remand,the trial court shall consider admissible evidence and determine whether the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement require the mother to pay for one half of the medical expenses incurred by the father on behalf of the child. In making this determination, the trial court must decide whether the expenses challenged by the mother required “major” decisions as defined in the parties’ agreement.
REVERSED.
HARRIS, THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Krause v. Krause, 793 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…l, orthodontic, and optical expenses incurred by the children which are not covered by insurance.” There was no provision in the marital settlement agreement providing that each parent must jointly approve the above expenses. Cf. Velasquez v. Rueda, 736 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (discussing settlement agreement which provided that each parent must jointly approve “major” medical, dental, institutional, psychiatric or other care). Therefore, the issue before the general master was the reasonableness and t…