Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Roxanna DENIS, Appellant, v. Carl Edouard DENIS, Appellee.
Appellant Roxanna Denis (“Wife”) challenges three portions of a final judgment dissolving her marriage to appellee Carl Edouard Denis (“Husband”): (i) the trial court's denial of Wife's claim for either bridge-the-gap or rehabilitative alimony; (ii) the trial court's denial of Wife's claim for attorney's fees; and (iii) the trial court's requiring of Wife to pay one-third of the minor child's uninsured medical and dental expenses.
We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wife's claims for alimony and attorney's fees, and therefore affirm these determinations without further discussion.1 With regard to the third issue raised by Wife, however, we reverse and remand to the trial court either to: (i) require Wife to pay only 28.48 percent of the minor child's uninsured medical and dental expenses, or (ii) specify its rationale for requiring the Wife to pay one-third (i.e., 33.33 percent) of these expenses. Husband concedes that, based on Husband's Child Support Guidelines Worksheet, Wife's responsibility for these expenses should be only 28.48 percent rather than the 33.33 percent ordered in the final judgment.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
FOOTNOTES
1. To the extent that Wife's argument is based upon the trial court's failure to recite specific factual findings warranting the denial of Wife's alimony claim, we note that Wife filed no motion for rehearing directed toward the final judgment, and the basis for the trial court's ruling is supported by the record. Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So.2d 584, 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
SCALES, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 3D17-1219
Decided: August 01, 2018
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)