Appellant Rebecca Cox ("Wife") appeals the trial court’s grant of Appellee Harry Cox’s ("Husband") petition for modification of a maintenance order. Wife raises one issue for our review, which we restate as: Whether the trial court erred when it modified Husband’s obligation to provide insurance coverage for Wife.
Conclusion (slip op. at 7): The modification order is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 7): The trial court is not precluded from hearing additional evidence upon such matters so as to make an appropriate determination as to Husband’s insurance maintenance obligation under the present circumstances as the parties, and the scope and extent of such obligation, if any.
ROBB, J., concurring.
FRIEDLANDER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part with separate opinion: I agree with the majority that the order modifying maintenance should be reversed. I respectfully disagree that the matter should be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings . . .
Powered by Compendium
Comments for Trial court not precluded from hearing additional evidence so as to make an appropriate determination as to Husband’s insurance maintenance obligation