PATRICIA P. BURGESS, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
THOMAS R. BURGESS, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The husband seeks review of the trial court’s award of lump sum alimony to the wife and the denial of the husband’s claim for special equity in the marital home. The husband also appeals separately a judgment awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to the wife and an order amending the final judgment of dissolution to award the wife permanent periodic alimony. We affirm the trial court in every respect but remand for a correction in the final judgment of dissolution.
In affirming, we note that the trial court ordered that the husband was responsible to provide health insurance for the wife following the dissolution without setting any amount or limitation on that obligation. We agree that the husband should be required to furnish health insurance coverage for the wife. In view of the beneficial property distribution and alimony to be paid to the wife, however, we conclude that the amount of money the husband should pay for that health insurance be limited to the amount the husband currently pays to maintain health insurance coverage for his spouse under his present insurance policy.
Affirmed and remanded for correction of the final judgment.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kremer v. Kremer, 595 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…or three years a hospitalization policy with the same level of benefits which she had had under the husband’s employer’s group hospitalization policy. While such a requirement is generally within the trial court’s discretion, see Burgess v. Burgess, 576 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), there should be “reasonable limitations on the maximum costs to the husband of [that] requirement[].” Gay v. Gay, 573 So. 2d 180, 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). No such limitations were provided for here. See also Perez v. Perez, 539 So…
-
Young v. Young, 600 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…these points in inverse order. In regard to the third issue, we agree with the appellant/husband that his insurance obligation should have been limited to a specific sum commensurate with his current level of premium expense. See Burgess v. Burgess, 576 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Szemborski v. Szemborski, 530 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). In regard to the second issue, we find that the alimony award of $6,274.00 per month, which will decrease to $4,774.00 per month after three years, was within the amb…