Pauley v. Pauley, 94-0498

Decision Date29 March 1995
Docket NumberNo. 94-0498,94-0498
Citation652 So.2d 488
Parties20 Fla. L. Weekly D783 Clarence E. PAULEY, Appellant, v. Sandra Louise PAULEY, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

William F. Gallese of Brennan, Hayskar, Jefferson, Gorman, Walker & Schwerer, P.A., Fort Pierce, for appellant.

John T. Chandler, Fort Pierce, for appellee.

PARIENTE, Judge.

The three issues presented by the husband in this dissolution action are the trial court's award of permanent periodic alimony; the trial court's requirement that the husband pay the wife's health insurance coverage without a limitation on the amount; and the trial court's requirement that the husband pay all premiums on the outstanding life insurance policies.

Considering the length of the marriage and the wife's health problems, we do not find the award of permanent periodic alimony to constitute an abuse of discretion. Although the amount of alimony, when considered in connection with the husband's other obligations, consumes a large percentage of the husband's current income, we do not find the amount violates the dictates of Pastore v. Pastore, 497 So.2d 635, 638 (Fla.1986). Further, the wife has agreed to pay the premiums on the outstanding life insurance policies, thereby mooting this appellate issue.

Concerning the issue of health insurance coverage, the trial court ordered, as part of the wife's support, that the husband continue to cover the wife under his group health insurance plan through his employer. During the entire time the parties were separated, the husband had been paying for the wife's health insurance coverage, as well as coverage for the entire family, through his group health plan. The husband asserts that the trial court erred in not placing a monetary limitation on the amount of the coverage. However, this court has specifically held that there is no requirement that the trial court set a specific limit on the amount of coverage where the amount is easily ascertainable because the specific policy is already in existence. See Blythe v. Blythe, 592 So.2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The only limitation this court has placed on obligations to pay health coverage, where such coverage is already in existence, is the general limitation that the premiums be "reasonable." See Watford v. Watford, 605 So.2d 1313, 1315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

This is not a case where there was no pre-existing health insurance coverage. Where there is no existing health insurance, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Lakin v. Lakin, 4D04-826.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 23, 2005
    ...specific policy is already in existence," there must be a general limitation that the premiums be "reasonable." See Pauley v. Pauley, 652 So.2d 488, 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Blythe v. Blythe, 592 So.2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). On remand the trial court shall clarify this portion of the fina......
  • Walton v. Walton, 93-2838
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 28, 1995
    ...and the wife concedes, that the expenses should be limited to those that are "reasonable and necessary." We agree. Pauley v. Pauley, 652 So.2d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). See Armstrong v. Armstrong, 623 So.2d 1216, 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Watford v. Watford, 605 So.2d 1313 (Fla 4th DCA 1992)......
2 books & journal articles
  • Alimony and support
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Family Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • April 30, 2022
    ...would survive remarriage of payee spouse). ALIMONY, SUPPORT 16-43 Alimony and Support §16:103 • Fourth District: Pauley v. Pauley, 652 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (when ordering, in marriage dissolution action, that one spouse pay for health insurance coverage for other, where there is n......
  • Temporary relief
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Family Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • April 30, 2022
    ...premiums must be reasonable, and the trial court is not required to set a specific limit on the amount of coverage. [ Pauley v. Pauley, 652 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).] §13:113 Life Insurance as Security The trial court may order the obligor to maintain a life insurance policy as securi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT