Marriage of Spangler v. Spangler

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marriage of Spangler v. Spangler

470 So. 2d 732, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1164, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13936

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 9, 1985

DocketNo. 84-478

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 470 So. 2d 732 (Marriage of Spangler v. Spangler) 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

Marriage of Spangler v. Spangler, 470 So. 2d 732, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1164, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13936 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon a careful review of the record in this case, we cannot afford the appellant any substantial relief from the judgment he deems oppressive. While we may disagree with the generosity of the awards made and the denial of the special equity, we cannot reverse the judgment. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Walter v. Walter, 464 So.2d 538 (Fla.1985).

We do find error, though, in the requirement that appellant have appellee covered under his employer's health insurance policy, or provide an alternative “approved by” appellee. We were informed by the parties that the employer’s policy would not cover an ex-spouse. To require the appellant to solicit appellee’s “approval” of an insurance policy would likely lead to irresolvable problems in this case. It is clear that if the appellee needs or wants such insurance she is in at least as good a position, financially, as appellant to provide it. That portion of the judgment is reversed, but the remainder is affirmed.

REVERSED in part; AFFIRMED in part.

COBB, C.J., and DAUKSCH and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon a careful review of the record in this case, we cannot afford the appellant any substantial relief from the judgment he deems oppressive. While we may disagree with the generosity of the awards made and the denial of the special equity, we cannot reverse the judgment. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Walter v. Walter, 464 So.2d 538 (Fla.1985).

We do find error, though, in the requirement that appellant have appellee covered under his employer's health insurance policy, or provide an alternative “approved by” appellee. We were informed by the parties that the employer’s policy would not cover an ex-spouse. To require the appellant to solicit appellee’s “approval” of an insurance policy would likely lead to irresolvable problems in this case. It is clear that if the appellee needs or wants such insurance she is in at least as good a position, financially, as appellant to provide it. That portion of the judgment is reversed, but the remainder is affirmed.

REVERSED in part; AFFIRMED in part.

COBB, C.J., and DAUKSCH and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

470 So. 2d 732, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1164, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marriage-of-spangler-v-spangler-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack