JENETHAL A. GRANT, APPELLANT,
v.
CLARENCE GRANT, 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 appellate court reversed a dissolution judgment regarding equitable distribution of military retirement pension. The trial court's decision was based on a prior ruling that was later overturned by the Florida Supreme Court, requiring reconsideration of the pension's treatment as a marital asset.
The appellate court held that the trial court's judgment regarding alimony and property rights must be reconsidered in light of the supreme court's decision that vested pension rights are marital assets.
[1] Vested and matured military retirement pension rights may be considered a marital asset in determining equitable distribution and alimony.
[2] Trial courts have discretion in valuing and treating pension rights when determining equitable distribution and alimony.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“appellant wife “is not, under Florida Law, entitled to an equitable distribution of any portion of the Husband’s military retirement pension,” which at the time was fully vested.”
This quote establishes the trial court's initial ruling based on the precedent at the time.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court denied the wife equitable distribution of the husband's vested military retirement pension, relying on a precedent that was subsequent…
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 Equitable Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appealed judgment of dissolution ruled, consistent with this court’s decision in Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 456 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), that appellant wife “is not, under Florida Law, entitled to an equitable distribution of any portion of the Husband’s military retirement pension,” which at the time was fully vested. After entry of that judgment, the supreme court reversed the Diffenderfer decision and held that a husband’s vested and matured pension rights may be considered as a marital asset in determining equitable distribution and alimony. Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1986).
That opinion did not circumscribe the power of the circuit judge to consider such benefits in determining the amount of alimony to be awarded to the wife, but left to the trial judge’s discretion how pension rights are to be valued and treated in doing equity between the parties. It not being clear, however, to what extent the trial court considered the husband’s pension rights in determining the amount of appellant’s alimony and in approving the property settlement previously agreed to by the parties, nor the extent to which such pension rights may be so considered and distributed under applicable federal law, we reverse all provisions of the judgment pertaining to alimony and property rights and remand for reconsideration in light of the supreme court opinion in Diffenderfer. See Evans v. St. Regis Paper Co., 287 So. 2d 296 (Fla.1973); Pate v. Mellen, 275 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) (on rehearing).
Diffenderfer permits the trial court, depending on the facts of the case, to consider the pension benefits as a marital asset for lump sum distribution or as a source of support payments.
Accordingly, it should be made clear that we are not directing the trial court to make any specific changes in its judgment, but only that it give consideration to the pension benefits accruing during the marriage as a marital asset.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
THOMPSON, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bujarski v. Marcel J. Bujarski, 530 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…e that this court is taking a major step backwards from the developing law of equitable distribution in Florida. See Dwyer v. Dwyer, 513 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Tripp; Zipperer v. Zipperer, 508 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Grant v. Grant, 506 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); McCarthy v. McCarthy, 523 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988). The facts in this case present the classic situation for equitable distribution of a military pension as a marital asset. The parties married in 1957. The parties raise…
-
Overstreet v. Overstreet, 513 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…. Barrs, 505 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987);5 Jennings v. Jennings, 510 So. 2d 994, (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Szemborski v. Szemborski, 512 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). See In Re Marriage of Iverson, 508 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Grant v. Grant, 506 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Gregg v. Gregg, 474 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985); Carroll v. Carroll, 471 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3rd DCA), review denied, 482 So. 2d 347 (Fla.1985). I respectfully submit that the majority opinion in this case is in conflict with d…1 / 2
-
O'Dell v. O'Dell, 583 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…e and remand for reconsideration of marital asset which was not included in final judgment); Barrs v. Barrs, 505 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (trial court should make specific findings regarding equitable distribution of property); Grant v. Grant, 506 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (all provisions of a judgment were reversed and case was remanded to trial court where it was not clear to what extent the trial court considered the husband’s pension rights in approving property settlement and determining alimo…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986)
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 456 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Lennie Elizabeth Pate v. Mellen, 275 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Evans v. ST. Regis Paper Co., 287 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1973)