Owen v. Owen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Owen v. Owen

773 So. 2d 1285, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16971, 2000 WL 1880216

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 29, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-4009

StatusPublished

This text of 773 So. 2d 1285 (Owen v. Owen) 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

Owen v. Owen, 773 So. 2d 1285, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16971, 2000 WL 1880216 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand the trial court’s order requiring the former husband to pay the wife’s health insurance for a period of 375 months. While the trial court had jurisdiction to award health insurance as some form of alimony pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, it is not readily apparent from the record why the former husband is required to make the payments and what legal justification exists for the period which is chosen. We are, therefore, required to reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Swanston v. Swanston, 746 So.2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding final judgment of dissolution of marriage that failed to include findings of fact in support of alimony award was legally deficient); Spence v. Spence, 669 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (reversing judgment where trial court failed to make specific findings justifying award of rehabilitative alimony).

JOANOS, WOLF and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand the trial court’s order requiring the former husband to pay the wife’s health insurance for a period of 375 months. While the trial court had jurisdiction to award health insurance as some form of alimony pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, it is not readily apparent from the record why the former husband is required to make the payments and what legal justification exists for the period which is chosen. We are, therefore, required to reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Swanston v. Swanston, 746 So.2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding final judgment of dissolution of marriage that failed to include findings of fact in support of alimony award was legally deficient); Spence v. Spence, 669 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (reversing judgment where trial court failed to make specific findings justifying award of rehabilitative alimony).

JOANOS, WOLF and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

773 So. 2d 1285, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16971, 2000 WL 1880216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owen-v-owen-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack