Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

570 So. 2d 1030

Docket No. 89-2178.

Oh v. Oh

Stephen Sukil OH, Appellant, v. Michelle Heeduk OH, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 15, 1990.

Rehearing Denied December 17, 1990.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1990-11-15

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1997

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[t]his court has consistently found that an order requiring a payment of medical expenses must specify a dollar amount or total liability of the payor spouse in relation to his or her ability to provide this type of support.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 692 So. 2d 266 - Warner v. Warner

“in order to limit the liability of the paying spouse in relation to his or her ability to provide this item of support.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Todesco v. Todesco

Relies on 466 So. 2d 356 - Miller v. Miller · 477 So. 2d 620 - Richards v. Richards · 493 So. 2d 19 - Jones v. Jones

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-11-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Garrett L. Briggs of Adams & Briggs, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

¶2Henry P. Duffett of Duffett, Seps and Akers, Ormond Beach, for appellee.

¶3GRIFFIN, Judge.

¶4We find error only in the alimony award covering the wife's medical expenses. The final judgment variously requires the husband to be responsible for the wife's "medical/hospital/health care/drug bills not covered by insurance" and "all of the wife's reasonable medical, surgical, hospital, health care and prescription drug bills" not covered by the comprehensive medical/hospital insurance plan the husband was required to provide. This court has consistently held an order requiring such a payment of medical expenses must specify a dollar amount or total financial exposure in order to limit the liability of the paying spouse in relation to his or her ability to provide this item of support. Marsh v. Marsh,553 So.2d 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Jones v. Jones,493 So.2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Richards v. Richards,477 So.2d 620 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Miller v. Miller,466 So.2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Simply limiting the liability to "reasonable" medical bills, as approved in Brandenburg v. Brandenburg,550 So.2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), does not adequately treat this issue. Accordingly, the medical expenses provision of the final judgment is reversed and remanded to the trial court for reconsideration.

¶5AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

¶6W. SHARP and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

/570/so2d/1030 · .json · Public domain