Mannix v. Mannix

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mannix v. Mannix

763 So. 2d 1135, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 17581, 1999 WL 1259915

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 29, 1999

DocketNo. 97-4224

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 763 So. 2d 1135 (Mannix v. Mannix) 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

Mannix v. Mannix, 763 So. 2d 1135, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 17581, 1999 WL 1259915 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The former wife appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the trial court’s child support award, determination of the husband’s income for support purposes, validation of the property settlement agreement, and denial of attorney’s fees. Additionally, the former wife contends that the trial court erred in failing to hold the former husband in contempt for failing to attend counseling for domestic violence. We find error only in the trial court’s calculation of child support.

From our review of the record, we are unable to determine whether the trial court considered day care expenses in computing child support. Section 61.30(7), Florida Statutes, requires that 75% of day care costs be added to the child support obligation where day care is necessary due to employment, job search, and education.

We find support, however, for the trial court’s award of $100 per month for medical insurance for the minor child. The wife testified that she paid $10 per month to insure the minor child through the Florida Healthy Kids Program. She stated that better health insurance is available through her employer for $200 per month. Section 61.30(l)(b) provides that the court may require the obligor either to provide health insurance coverage or to reimburse the obligee for the cost of health insurance coverage for the minor child when group insurance coverage is reasonably available and provided by the obligee. Because the trial court has discretion in awarding insurance costs at a “reasonable rate,” we find no abuse of discretion is the amount set by the trial court. See Haas v. Haas, 552 So.2d 221, 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

We reverse the final judgment only as to child support and remand with directions that the court consider whether child support should be recalculated to include day care expenses.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

WARNER, C.J., TAYLOR, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C, Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The former wife appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the trial court’s child support award, determination of the husband’s income for support purposes, validation of the property settlement agreement, and denial of attorney’s fees. Additionally, the former wife contends that the trial court erred in failing to hold the former husband in contempt for failing to attend counseling for domestic violence. We find error only in the trial court’s calculation of child support.

From our review of the record, we are unable to determine whether the trial court considered day care expenses in computing child support. Section 61.30(7), Florida Statutes, requires that 75% of day care costs be added to the child support obligation where day care is necessary due to employment, job search, and education.

We find support, however, for the trial court’s award of $100 per month for medical insurance for the minor child. The wife testified that she paid $10 per month to insure the minor child through the Florida Healthy Kids Program. She stated that better health insurance is available through her employer for $200 per month. Section 61.30(l)(b) provides that the court may require the obligor either to provide health insurance coverage or to reimburse the obligee for the cost of health insurance coverage for the minor child when group insurance coverage is reasonably available and provided by the obligee. Because the trial court has discretion in awarding insurance costs at a “reasonable rate,” we find no abuse of discretion is the amount set by the trial court. See Haas v. Haas, 552 So.2d 221, 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

We reverse the final judgment only as to child support and remand with directions that the court consider whether child support should be recalculated to include day care expenses.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

WARNER, C.J., TAYLOR, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C, Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

763 So. 2d 1135, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 17581, 1999 WL 1259915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mannix-v-mannix-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack