LISA DIANE LUPOLA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT LUPOLA, JR., 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 a dissolution of marriage order but reversed the trial court's equal allocation of non-covered medical expenses for the minor child, holding that such expenses must be allocated according to the parties' relative financial responsibility for child support absent a logically established rationale to the contrary.
Non-covered medical expenses for a minor child must be allocated in the same percentage as the child support allocation unless the final judgment contains a logically established rationale to the contrary.
[1] Non-covered medical expenses for a minor child must be allocated according to the parties' relative financial responsibility for child support unless the final judgment c…
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“Non-covered medical expenses are generally to be allocated in the same percentage as the child support allocation when they are ordered to be separately paid, unless there is some 'logically established rationale in the final judgment to the contrary.'”
The court established the standard for allocating non-covered medical expenses in family law cases.
Lisa Diane Lupola and Robert Lupola, Jr. were parties to a dissolution of marriage involving a minor child. The trial court ordered the parties to be …
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
Lisa Diane Lupola appeals a final order of dissolution of marriage, raising fourteen issues. We affirm all of the issues without comment, except for Ms. Lupola’s argument that the court erred by ordering the parties to be equally responsible for the payment of all non-covered medical expenses for their minor child. We agree with Ms. Lupola on that point. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Ms. Lupola contends that the trial court’s allocation of responsibility for the child’s non-covered medical expenses conflicts with its determination of the parties’ relative financial responsibility for child support. Non-covered medical expenses are generally to be allocated in the same percentage as the child support allocation when they are ordered to be separately paid, unless there is some “logically established rationale in the final judgment to the contrary.” 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)). The final judgment contains no rationale to the contrary. Accordingly, we agree with Ms. Lupola on this issue and reverse this portion of the final judgment. On remand, the court shall establish the parties’ obligations for non-covered medical expenses according to their relative financial responsibility for child support.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED,
RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Zinovoy v. Zinovoy, 50 So. 3d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Mayfield v. Mayfield, 103 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)