DENIS
v.
DENIS

Fla. 3d DCA | 2018-08-01
No. 17-1219
252 So. 3d 365 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2018)

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.


Holding

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying alimony and attorney's fees, but erred in ordering Wife to pay one-third of uninsured medical and dental expenses when the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet calculated her responsibility at 28.48 percent.


Headnotes

[1] The trial court's allocation of a minor child's uninsured medical and dental expenses must be consistent with the percentages calculated in the Child Support Guidelines W…

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

Facts & Procedural History

Wife and Husband divorced in Miami-Dade County. The trial court denied Wife's claims for bridge-the-gap or rehabilitative alimony and attorney's fees,…

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.


Opinion of the Court

SCALES, J.

Appellant Roxanna Denis (“Wife”) challenges three portions of a final judgment dissolving her marriage to appellee Carl Edouard Denis (“Husband”): (i) the trial court’s denial of Wife’s claim for either bridge-the-gap or rehabilitative alimony; (ii) the trial court’s denial of Wife’s claim for attorney’s fees; and (iii) the trial court’s requiring of Wife to pay one-third of the minor child’s uninsured medical and dental expenses.

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Wife’s claims for alimony and attorney’s fees, and therefore affirm these determinations without further discussion.1 With regard to the third issue raised by

Wife, however, we reverse and remand to the trial court either to: (i) require Wife to pay only 28.48 percent of the minor child’s uninsured medical and dental expenses, or (ii) specify its rationale for requiring the Wife to pay one-third (i.e.,

33.33 percent) of these expenses. Husband concedes that, based on Husband’s

Child Support Guidelines Worksheet, Wife’s responsibility for these expenses should be only 28.48 percent rather than the 33.33 percent ordered in the final judgment.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Footnotes
1 To the extent that Wife’s argument is based upon the trial court’s failure to recite specific factual findings warranting the denial of Wife’s alimony claim, we note that Wife filed no motion for rehearing directed toward the final judgment, and the basis for the trial court’s ruling is supported by the record. Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584, 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw