LOUISE C. WEBB, APPELLANT,
v.
BERT HARRY WEBB, JR., 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.
The Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's property division in a divorce case, holding that the trial court erred in rejecting expert testimony about a husband's military retirement pension and in awarding the husband 100% special equity in marital property. The court remanded for reconsideration of all property division and alimony awards.
The trial court erred in rejecting the wife's expert testimony about the military pension's present value because military retirement pensions may constitute marital property subject to equitable distribution. Additionally, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the husband 100% special equity in the Michigan property to the extent that marital funds were used to acquire the purchased one-half interest and to the extent that marital funds and joint efforts enhanced the property's value.
[1] Military retirement pensions are considered marital property for purposes of equitable distribution.
[2] When a retirement pension is considered marital property, remedies of property division and alimony awards must be reconsidered upon remand.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It is now clear that a retirement pension may be considered marital property for purposes of equitable distribution.”
Establishes that military retirement pensions are marital property subject to equitable distribution, overruling the trial court's rejection of pension valuation testimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a divorce proceeding, the husband possessed a military retirement pension and owned rental property in Michigan. The husband inherited a one-half i…
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 Special Equity In Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
The trial court erred in rejecting the wife’s proffer of expert testimony concerning the present value of the husband’s military retirement pension. It is now clear that a retirement pension may be considered marital property for purposes of equitable distribution. Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1986). Because remedies of property division and alimony awards are interrelated, Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), upon remand, the trial judge should reconsider all such awards.
Additionally, we note the wife’s objection to the trial court’s award to the husband of a 100% special equity in rental property in Ann Arbor, Michigan, a one-half interest in which the husband inherited during the marriage. The remaining one-half interest in that property was acquired by the husband by payment of $30,000 to the other heirs, and that money came from joint funds created by the pooling of assets between the husband and wife at the time of the marriage. These joint funds were found by the trial court to be marital assets. After acquiring the entire interest, the husband conveyed the property to himself and his wife, jointly. It is undisputed that after acquiring this property, the husband and wife contributed funds and labor to improving it and securing appropriate rentals. It would appear that to the extent that marital funds were used to acquire the one-half interest purchased from the remaining heirs as well as to the extent the value of the property was enhanced by the joint funds and efforts of the parties, that proportionate interest should be treated as marital property, so that the award to the husband of a 100% special equity in this property was an abuse of discretion. See Sanders v. Sanders, 492 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Upon remand, the court should determine what interest in the Ann Arbor property is marital property, and treat that interest accordingly in making equitable distribution.
Except as it dissolves the marriage between the parties, the final judgment of dissolution is reversed and the cause is remanded for further consideration in accordance herewith.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wright v. Wright, 505 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ould be considered as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution, absent a showing that either marital funds, assets, or the work efforts of one or both spouses contributed in some measure to the enhanced value of the asset. In Webb v. Webb, 498 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), this court held the appreciated value of an asset partially inherited by one spouse should be considered marital property subject to equitable distribution to the extent marital funds were used to acquire an ownership interest i…
-
Billig v. Billig, 716 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…e become a “reality” by the time this ease is remanded and reconsidered. . Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Decker v. Decker, 534 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Keller v. Keller, 521 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Webb v. Webb, 498 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). . Stewart v. Rich, 664 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Stodtko v. Stodtko, 636 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).…
-
Cameron v. Cameron, 591 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…marital funds, and marital work efforts. In categorizing property as a marital asset, it really does not matter which spouse’s income or work efforts were involved in its acquisition. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Webb v. Webb, 498 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). As explained above, the trial court’s interpretation of the prenuptial agreement appears to be a reasonable one. Applying that interpretation, the court distributed one-half of the properties acquired after marriage with marita…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986)
- Sanders v. Dorsey A. Sanders, Jr., 492 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)