Feagle v. Feagle
This text of 696 So. 2d 959 (Feagle v. Feagle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The trial court ordered appellant to provide dental and health insurance for the minor child; however, there is no record evidence indicating that such insurance is reasonably available to appellant as that term is defined in section 61.13(l)(b), Fla. Stat. Therefore, we REVERSE that portion of the final dissolution order and REMAND for reconsideration of the issue. See, e.g., Carlton v. Carlton, 599 So.2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Rosen v. Rosen, 655 So.2d 153 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1995); Dehler v. Dehler, 648 So.2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The trial court may take further evidence as necessary to determine the reasonable availability of health insurance. The order is AFFIRMED in all other respects.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
696 So. 2d 959, 1997 WL 395258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feagle-v-feagle-fladistctapp-1997.