ANNETTE MARCADIS HARRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDREW M. HARRIS, 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.
Wife appealed a final divorce judgment, arguing it failed to include required provisions for the children's health insurance and noncovered medical expenses. The appellate court reversed in part, holding that Florida law mandates inclusion of these provisions in divorce judgments, even if the obligor spouse is voluntarily providing such coverage.
The court held that Section 61.13(l)(b), Florida Statutes, mandates that final divorce judgments include provisions for health insurance for minor children when reasonable in cost and accessible, and must apportion noncovered medical, dental, and prescription expenses. The failure to include such language constitutes reversible error that cannot be cured by voluntary compliance.
[1] A final judgment dissolving a marriage must include a provision for health insurance for minor children when such insurance is reasonable in cost and accessible.
[2] A final judgment dissolving a marriage must apportion the cost of health insurance and any non-covered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses of the childr…
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“a provision for health insurance for the minor child when health insurance is reasonable in cost and accessible to the child”
Statutory requirement that must be included in divorce judgments under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnnette and Andrew Harris were divorcing and had minor children. The final judgment dissolved their marriage but did not include language requiring he…
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 Child Support Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
Annette Marcadis Harris, the Wife, filed this direct appeal of a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Andrew M. Harris, the Husband. We reverse the final judgment because it does not include a provision for health insurance for the minor children and it also does not include a *1096provision addressing the cost of any non-covered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses of the children. We remand for the trial court to address these two issues. The judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage is affirmed in all other respects.
Section 61.13(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2009), requires the trial court to include in its order “a provision for health insurance for the minor child when health insurance is reasonable in cost and accessible to the child.” This section also requires that the trial court “apportion the cost of health insurance, and any noneov-ered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses of the child, to both parties by adding the cost to the basic obligation determined pursuant to s. 61.30(6).” Id.; see also § 61.30(8) (“Health insurance costs resulting from coverage ordered pursuant to s. 61.13(l)(b), and any noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses of the child, shall be added to the basic obligation unless these expenses have been ordered to be separately paid on a percentage basis.”); Whittingham v. Whittingham, 67 So.3d 239, 240 (Fla. 2D DCA 2010) (reversing final judgment where trial' court did not address health care coverage for child and noncovered dental, medical, and prescription medication expenses).
In the present case, the final judgment mentions neither the children’s health insurance nor their out-of-pocket medical expenses. Although the child support guidelines worksheet notes what the Husband pays for the children’s health insurance, there is no language in the final judgment mandating that he continue to pay for their insurance. The Husband acknowledges that the final judgment does not contain a provision for the children’s health insurance but contends that any error is harmless because he does pay for their health insurance. We do not agree that the error is harmless because as this court stated in Butler v. Butler, 622 So.2d 73, 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), “[ejven if the husband is providing insurance, this does not abrogate the requirement of making it a legal obligation pursuant to the final judgment.” We therefore remand the case for the trial court to include in the final judgment language stating that the Husband is required to pay for the health insurance for the minor children and to also apportion to the parties in the order for support the cost of any noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses of the children.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WALLACE and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anthony v. Cilenti, 192 So. 3d 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…675] the child’s health insurance, but the final judgment does not obligate her to do so. Therefore, the trial court on remand must make any provision of health insurance for the child. a legal obligation in the final judgment. See Harris v. Harris, 114 So. 3d 1095, 1096 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Regarding the marital debt, we conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s determination of whether a liability is marital or nonmarital. See Fortune v. Fortune, 61 So. 3d 441, 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). The trial court fou…
-
Murphy v. Murphy, 206 So. 3d 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…udgment that require reversal. First, the final judgment fails to address the parties’ responsibility for healthcare expenses for the minor child that are not covered by health insurance. See § 61.13(b), Fla. Stat. (2015); see also Harris v. Harris, 114 So. 3d 1095, 1096 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that trial court’s failure to address healthcare coverage for children and non-covered dental, medical, and prescription medication expenses required remand). Second, as reflected in paragraph twelve of the former w…
-
Nicholas v. Nicholas (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Whittingham v. Whittingham, 67 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Butler v. Butler, 622 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)