JAMES R. BOGARD, APPELLANT,
v.
JUDITH J. BOGARD, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this dissolution of marriage case, the Fifth District Court of Appeal addresses whether a pension earned during the marriage constitutes a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. Finding the issue of great public importance and the court evenly divided, the panel certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court.
The court declined to resolve the issue and instead certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court as a matter of great public importance requiring immediate resolution, as the Fifth District was evenly divided on whether pensions constitute marital assets.
[1] A pension earned during the term of a marriage may be considered a marital asset subject to equitable distribution.
[2] Conflicting appellate court decisions on whether a pension is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution warrant resolution by the Florida Supreme Court.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The issue which primarily concerns us is whether the trial court correctly held that a pension was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution by the court.”
Identifies the central legal question presented in the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames and Judith Bogard were married for 28 years. James, age 50, is an engineer earning approximately $3,100 monthly and has worked for Martin-Mariet…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1202] EN BANC.
James Bogará appeals a final judgment of dissolution granting him a special equity in the marital home, awarding permanent alimony to his wife, Judith Bogard, and dividing his prospective pension equally between the parties.
This case involves a twenty-eight-year marriage between the husband, age fifty, and the wife, age forty-seven. Three children, all now emancipated, were born of the marriage. The husband is an engineer and has worked for Martin-Marietta Corporation for twenty-five years, with a present net monthly income of about $3,100.00. The wife is presently unemployed and has been unemployed throughout most of the marriage.
At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court awarded the husband a special equity in the marital home in the sum of $5,000.00. The trial court also awarded the wife some $10,000.00 per year as permanent alimony, ordered the marital residence (valued at $110,000.00 with a $14,700.00 mortgage) sold and the proceeds therefrom divided. The court also divided the present cash value of the husband’s profit sharing plan at Martin-Marietta ($20,636.00), and divided the husband’s prospective pension.
The issue which primarily concerns us is whether the trial court correctly held that a pension was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution by the court.
In Clarke v. Clarke, 443 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), the Second District held that a pension may be considered a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. In contrast, in Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 456 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), the First District held that a retirement plan could be considered as a source of payment for alimony, but it should not be treated as a marital asset subject to division by the court.
The panel which initially heard this case concluded that the question was a matter of great public importance and recommended that the case be considered en banc. At the en banc hearing, the court was evenly divided.
This court finds that the question whether a pension, earned during the term of the marriage, may be considered a marital asset requires immediate resolution by the Florida supreme court as an issue of great public importance and one which has, and will have, a great effect on the administration of justice throughout the state.
This court respectfully requests the supreme court to accept jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.125.
COBB, C. J., and DAUKSCH, ORFINGER, UPCHURCH, SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bogard v. Bogard, 490 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1986)…ADKINS, Justice. We have for review Bogard v. Bogard, 478 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), in which the district court certified to this Court the question of whether the trial court had properly considered the husband’s prospective pension as marital property for purposes of equitable distribution. At an en banc hear…
-
Dep't OF Admin. v. Gideon Allen Albritton, 489 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…l. Watson v. Lee, 157 Fla. 62, 24 So. 2d 798 (1946); Voorhees v. City of Miami, 145 Fla. 402, 199 So. 313 (1940); and In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 98 Fla. 843, 124 So. 728 (1929). . Voorhees, 39 Fla.Jur.2d 148 (1982). .Bogard v. Bogard, 478 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (question certified to supreme court as a matter of great public importance) and Clarke v. Clarke, 443 So. 2d 486 (Fla.2d DCA 1984) (pension is a marital asset for purposes of equitable distribution); but see, McClung v. McClung,…
Authorities Cited
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 456 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Clarke v. Clarke, 443 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)