Opinion
No. 1D15–2958.
10-04-2016
Lisa Diane LUPOLA, Appellant, v. Robert LUPOLA, Jr., Appellee.
R. Stan Peeler of Peeler Law Firm, P.C., Pensacola, for Appellant. Michael R. Gates of Cotton & Gates, Shalimar, for Appellee.
R. Stan Peeler of Peeler Law Firm, P.C., Pensacola, for Appellant.
Michael R. Gates of Cotton & Gates, Shalimar, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Lisa Diane Lupola appeals a final order of dissolution of marriage, raising fourteen issues. We affirm all of the issues without comment, except for Ms. Lupola's argument that the court erred by ordering the parties to be equally responsible for the payment of all non-covered medical expenses for their minor child. We agree with Ms. Lupola on that point. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Ms. Lupola contends that the trial court's allocation of responsibility for the child's non-covered medical expenses conflicts with its determination of the parties' relative financial responsibility for child support. Non-covered medical expenses are generally to be allocated in the same percentage as the child support allocation when they are ordered to be separately paid, unless there is some “logically established rationale in the final judgment to the contrary.” Mayfield v. Mayfield, 103 So.3d 968, 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (quoting Zinovoy v. Zinovoy, 50 So.3d 763, 764–65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ). The final judgment contains no rationale to the contrary. Accordingly, we agree with Ms. Lupola on this issue and reverse this portion of the final judgment. On remand, the court shall establish the parties' obligations for non-covered medical expenses according to their relative financial responsibility for child support.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.