JERALD RATICOFF, APPELLANT,
v.
JOAN RATICOFF, 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 appellate court reversed the trial court's award of additional pension benefits to the wife that were discovered after the parties executed their Property Settlement Agreement. The court held that since these additional benefits were never contemplated by either party when the agreement was made, the trial court erred in awarding them based on the stipulated language, and remanded for proper equitable distribution of the newly discovered marital asset.
The trial court erred in awarding to the wife pension benefits that were never contemplated by either party at the time of the stipulated property settlement agreement. The case was reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine the value of the newly discovered pension benefits and for the trial court to equitably distribute that marital asset.
[1] A trial court errs by awarding a party property rights not contemplated by the parties at the time of a stipulated property settlement agreement.
[2] Ambiguity in a property settlement agreement arising from the subsequent discovery of previously unknown assets requires an evidentiary hearing to ascertain value and equ…
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 terms of the property settlement agreement stipulated into the record became ambiguous only because additional pension benefits were subsequently discovered by the husband... Thus, the meaning and intention of the parties cannot be gleaned from the content of the stipulation because the property right in dispute was never contemplated by either party at the time of the settlement.”
Establishes the core legal principle that when a property settlement becomes ambiguous due to the discovery of rights never contemplated by the parties, the court cannot determine the parties' intent from the original stipulation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJerald and Joan Raticoff executed a Property Settlement Agreement providing that the wife would receive the husband's pension plan benefits of $1,527 …
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 Ambiguity In Contract Language cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
Jerald Raticoff (the husband) appeals a final judgment of dissolution. We agree with the husband’s contention that the trial court committed reversible error when it found that Joan Raticoff (the wife) was entitled to any additional monthly retirement benefits that might accrue over and above the anticipated amounts and beyond the ten-year period stipulated to by the parties in their Property Settlement Agreement.
The pertinent part of the Property Settlement Agreement read into the record at the final hearing on the husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage is as follows:
“June 1st, 1988, wife will receive and the husband will do those things necessary to transfer to the wife all his right, title and interest in his pension plan obtained as a result of his employment with Harry Winston & Company, which shall amount to $18,300 plus per year. It’s $1,527 per month.”
MR. CURTIS: Represented that the first payment of that would be due June 1st, 1988.
MR. MALONEY: And for a period of ten years.
It is admitted by both parties and their respective attorneys that at the time of the stipulation all concerned believed the pension plan benefits were available only for a period of ten years. However, during the preparation of the final judgment, it was discovered that there were additional benefits under the husband’s pension plan not specifically mentioned in the agreement which could accrue after the first ten years.
At the hearing on the wife’s motion to enter judgment, the husband maintained that the wife is entitled to his pension benefits for only a ten-year period commencing June 1, 1988. The wife disagreed and maintained that she is entitled to all the husband’s right, title, and interest in his pension plan including any benefits accruing after the first ten-year period commencing June 1, 1988. The trial court resolved the dispute in the wife’s favor and found that the wife shall receive any monthly pension benefits accruing over and above the anticipated amounts of the settlement.
In the instant case, the terms of the property settlement agreement stipulated into the record became ambiguous only because additional pension benefits were subsequently discovered by the husband. See Farkas v. Farkas, 426 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Thus, the meaning and intention of the parties cannot be gleaned from the content of the stipulation because the property right in dispute was never contemplated by either party at the time of the settlement.
Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in entering a final judgment awarding to the wife property rights which were never contemplated by either party at the time of the stipulated property settlement agreement. We reverse and remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to ascertain the value of that portion of the husband’s pension plan that was discovered after the Property Settlement Agreement was stipulated into the record and to then equitably distribute that marital asset.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Treasure, 984 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…tson v. Albertson, 566 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)). The agreement lacks any provision dealing with the unresolved issue as to what would happen if the employer would not permit a QDRO carrying out the parties’ intention. Cf Raticoff v. Raticoff, 507 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (concluding parties’ agreement became ambiguous by subsequent discovery of additional pension benefits and trial court erred in awarding wife property rights which were not contemplated by the parties at the time of the stipulate…
-
McHUGH v. McHUGH, 702 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…sset which increased in value. And had the plan suffered a loss, we do not think that the husband would offer to make up the difference between its loss in value and the amount of its value from the date of the final judgment. Raticoff v. Raticoff, 507 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), is distinguishable. In that case, the parties agreed to a distribution of benefits from the husband’s pension plan, only to discover after making the agreement that there were additional benefits which could be obtained. Thus, t…
Authorities Cited
- Farkas v. Farkas, 426 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)