Lisa Diane Lupola v. Robert Lupola Jr. , 200 So. 3d 270 ( 2016 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
LISA DIANE LUPOLA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D15-2958
ROBERT LUPOLA, JR.,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed October 4, 2016.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.
David Rimmer, Judge.
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.
2