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.
A retirement pension must be viewed as a marital asset for equitable distribution purposes. The trial court properly considered the husband's prospective pension.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal certified a question regarding whether a husband's prospective pension was marital property for equitable distribut…
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
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 hearing on the issue, the court was evenly divided and certified to this Court the question as one of great public importance and as having a great effect on the administration of justice throughout the state. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(5), Fla.Const., Rule 9.125, Fla.R.App.P. The Fifth District noted conflict between Clarke v. Clarke, 443 So. 2d 486 (Fla.2d DCA 1984), which held that a pension may be considered a marital asset subject to equitable distribution, and Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 456 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), which limited consideration of such benefits to a source of payment for support and maintenance obligations.
In Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1986), we recently quashed the district court decision and held that a retirement pension must be viewed as a marital asset in order to achieve an equitable distribution of property. Thus, we find that the trial court acted properly in considering the retirement pension. Further, applying the “reasonableness” standard of review enunciated in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), we find the court’s treatment of the benefits well within its range of discretion.
We therefore remand the cause to the District Court of Appeal with instructions to affirm the trial court’s disposition of the cause on the authority of our decision in Diffenderfer. It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and BARKETT, JJ„ concur. SHAW, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Kovalchick v. Laraine Kovalchick, 841 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…nd reverse and remand in part. On appeal, the husband asserts numerous errors with the trial court’s equitable distribution. The standard of review of a trial court’s determination of equitable distribution is abuse of discretion. Bogard v. Bogard, 490 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1986) (citing Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980))). Section 61.075, Florida Statutes, requires that distribution of marital assets and liabilities be supported by “factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent sub…
-
Dwyer v. Dwyer, 513 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…t acted within its discretion. The evidence reflects that the retirement benefits were equitably distributed and were not considered again as a source of alimony. See Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1986); Bogard v. Bogard, [*1327] 490 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1986). The trial court attempted to insure that both parties could maintain a standard of living similar to that which they enjoyed during the marriage, and provided each party with approximately the same amount of income and assets. Further, t…
-
Bujarski v. Marcel J. Bujarski, 530 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…bleness” standard of review enunciated in Canakaris v. Cana-karis, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), to the facts in this case, we find the trial court’s treatment of the retirement benefits within its range of discretion and affirm. See Bogará v. Bogard, 490 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1986). AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH, ORFINGER, COBB and DANIEL, JJ., concur. SHARP, C.J., dissents with opinion. . An award to the wife of one-half of the $31,-000 annual pension benefits would leave the [*954] husband with one-half of the pension or…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986)
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 456 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Clarke v. Clarke, 443 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Bogard v. Bogard, 478 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)