KELLY M. DEMMI, FORMER WIFE, APPELLANT,
v.
MARK S. DEMMI, FORMER HUSBAND, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's alimony and attorney's fees determinations but reversed the equal allocation of non-covered medical expenses for minor children, requiring instead allocation proportional to child support obligations.
Non-covered medical expenses for minor children must be allocated between parents in the same percentage as their child support allocation absent a logically established rationale to the contrary.
[1] Non-covered medical expenses for minor children must be allocated between parents proportionally to their child support obligations unless the final judgment provides a l…
Previewing 1 of 1 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]s a general rule, if non-covered medical expenses are ordered to be separately paid, 'absent some logically established rationale in the final judgment to the contrary, [they] must be allocated in the same percentage as the child support allocation.'”
The court cited this principle from Mayfield v. Mayfield to establish the governing standard for allocating medical expenses.
Kelly M. Demmi appealed a final dissolution order in which the trial court ordered the parties to be equally responsible for fifty percent of non-cove…
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 Family Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Kelly M. Demmi appeals a final order of dissolution arguing that the trial court abused its discretion (1). in determining the amount of permanent periodic alimony to be paid to her, (2) in denying her request for attorney’s fees, and (3) by ordering the parties "to be equally responsible for the payment of all non-covered medical expenses for the minor children. Wé affirm the first two issues without comment and reverse and remand as to the third issue.
'Ms. Demmi contends that the trial court erred in ordering the parties to each be responsible for the payment of fifty percent of the non-covered medical expenses of the children because this allocation. conflicts with the final judgment’s allocation of the parties’ relative financial responsibility for child support. “[A]s a general rule, if non-covered medical expenses are prdered to be separately paid, ‘absent some logically established rationale in the final judgment to the contrary, [they] must be allocated in the same percentage as the child support allocation.’” *1145 Mayfield v. Mayfield, 103 So.3d 968, 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (quoting Zinovoy v. Zinovoy, 50 So.3d 763, 764-65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)). There is no rationale in the final judgment to the contrary. Accordingly, we agree with Ms. Demmi on this issue, and reverse this portion of the final judgment. On remand, the court is directed to reapportion the parties’ allocation for uncovered medical expenses based on their relative financial responsibility for the support of their minor children.
RAY, OSTERHAUS, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Julia v. Julia, 263 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…rovide a “logically established rationale” for the disparity in the allocations. Without any “logically established rationale” for the disparity in the allocations, that portion of the post-judgment order was error. See, e.g., Demmi v. Demmi, 186 So. 3d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing collateral child support order and directing the trial court “to reapportion the parties’ allocation for uncovered medical expenses based on their relative financial responsibility for the support of their min…
-
Dorsey v. Dorsey, 266 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…n exhibit to the final 6 judgment, were incorrect.* The parties also agree that equal allocation of the children’s medical and dental expenses not covered by insurance violated section 61.30(8), Florida Statutes (2017). See Demmi v. Demmi, 186 So. 3d 1144, 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding that generally children’s medical expenses not covered by insurance should be allocated “in the same percentage as the child support allocation”) (citation omitted). Upon the parties’ concessions of error, the…
Authorities Cited
- Zinovoy v. Zinovoy, 50 So. 3d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Mayfield v. Mayfield, 103 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)