Lewis v. Lewis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lewis v. Lewis

667 So. 2d 390, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12467, 1995 WL 710184

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 4, 1995

DocketNo. 94-3920

StatusPublished

This text of 667 So. 2d 390 (Lewis v. Lewis) 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.

Bluebook

Lewis v. Lewis, 667 So. 2d 390, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12467, 1995 WL 710184 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

“Each order for child support shall contain a provision for health insurance for the minor child when the insurance is reasonably available.” Section 61.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1993). In the final order of dissolution of marriage, the trial court determined that ap-pellee has maintained health insurance for the two children through his employment, but neglected to order appellee to continue providing such coverage. See, e.g., Butler v. Butler, 622 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (“[e]ven if the husband is providing insurance, this does not abrogate the requirement of making it a legal obligation pursuant to the final judgment”). Therefore, we reverse and remand with directions to amend the order, in accordance with section 61.13(1)(b), by requiring appellee to continue to provide health insurance for the children so long as it continues to be reasonably available. In all other respects, the final order is affirmed.

JOANOS, MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

“Each order for child support shall contain a provision for health insurance for the minor child when the insurance is reasonably available.” Section 61.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1993). In the final order of dissolution of marriage, the trial court determined that ap-pellee has maintained health insurance for the two children through his employment, but neglected to order appellee to continue providing such coverage. See, e.g., Butler v. Butler, 622 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (“[e]ven if the husband is providing insurance, this does not abrogate the requirement of making it a legal obligation pursuant to the final judgment”). Therefore, we reverse and remand with directions to amend the order, in accordance with section 61.13(1)(b), by requiring appellee to continue to provide health insurance for the children so long as it continues to be reasonably available. In all other respects, the final order is affirmed.

JOANOS, MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 So. 2d 390, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12467, 1995 WL 710184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-lewis-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack