Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Support

When there are inconsistencies in a Florida family law order, a party might decide to file a motion for clarification. A motion for clarification asks the court to clear up any unclear parts of an order so everyone knows what their rights and obligations are under an order. A motion for clarification was the subject of the case Ager v. Berger, 5D20-1545 (Fla. 5th DCA September 10, 2021).

The trial court in this modification case entered a final judgment which in one paragraph, required the mother to “pay for health insurance coverage for the parties’ minor child so long as she continues to qualify for subsidized insurance coverage pursuant to the Affordable Care Act.” The same paragraph requires the Father to provide insurance coverage if the Mother ever loses coverage pursuant to the Affordable Care Act. In a later paragraph, the judgment states “[f]or as long as either party has a legal duty to support the child, who is the subject of this Final Order of Modification, or until further order of the Court, Mother shall continue to provide the child’s current health, dental, vison insurance coverage, and shall be responsible for the cost associated thereof.” The mother, finding these paragraphs to be inconsistent, appealed the final judgment.

The appellate court noted that the father agreed with the mother that the judgment needed to be clarified with regard to these paragraphs. However, the appellate court held it was not bound by the father’s concession. The court went on to hold there was no ambiguity. Specifically it held “Paragraph 24 specifically and clearly provides that the Mother is required to provide coverage for the parties’ minor child so long as she remains qualified for coverage under the Affordable Care Act and that the cost shifts to the Father if the Mother loses that coverage. In our view, paragraph 34’s general statement that the Mother ‘shall continue to provide the child’s current health, dental, vison insurance coverage’ simply recognizes that the status quo will continue unless the Father’s obligation to provide coverage in paragraph 24 is triggered.”

Thus it appears that the clarification the mother sought was made in this appellate opinion, even though her appeal was denied. If you need help understanding your rights and obligations under Florida family law, schedule a consultation with a Miami family law attorney.