# Amaro v. Amaro

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · September 13, 2002 · 843 So. 2d 787

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9934479

## Case

- **Full name:** Vincent J. Amaro v. Brenda M. Amaro.
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** September 13, 2002
- **Citations:** 843 So. 2d 787; 2002 WL 31040721
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Crawley
- **Judges:** Crawley, Thompson
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9934479

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reversing that part of a trial court's judgment requiring a noncustodial parent to provide health insurance for a child past the age of majority
- affirming a judgment in which the trial court ordered the father to pay an amount in excess of the guideline amount because the trial court had imputed additional income to the father

## Opinion text

This court holds that, because the trial court heard no evidence of the reasonable and necessary expenses that the daughter will incur in attending college, the cause must be remanded "to take evidence of" those expenses. 843 So.2d at 798 . I concur. I write separately only to clarify my position with respect to this court's reversal of that part of the trial court's judgment that orders the father to maintain health insurance for the college-bound daughter.
I presume that this court contemplates that, once the evidence of "reasonable and necessary expenses the daughter will incur in attending college," 843 So.2d at 797 , is heard, the trial court will enter an appropriate postminority-support order. In my opinion, health insurance for the benefit of the daughter is a "reasonable and necessary expense" that can be included in the postminority support order. See Smith v. Smith , [Ms. 2001040, May 31, 2002] 836 So.2d 893 , 897
(Ala.Civ.App. 2002); Payne v. Williams , 678 So.2d 1118 , 1122
(Ala.Civ.App. 1996) (affirming a trial court's judgment relieving a father of the obligation to pay his daughter's health-insurance expenses because the father was currently unemployed, but recognizing that the trial court "could well have decided that the father's duty to pay [health insurance costs as a part of] post-minority support should be based on the father's ability to earn rather than his actual income").

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9934479. Public record. Not legal advice.