FRANCES KAY KLUESSNER, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM NORMAN KLUESSNER, 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 court reversed the trial court's award of a special equity in the marital home to the husband based on pension funds used to repay his mother's loan, holding that only pension funds accumulated during the marriage constitute marital assets.
Only pension funds accumulated during the marriage constitute marital assets, and the trial court must determine what portion of the pension was accumulated before versus during the marriage before awarding a special equity.
[1] Pension funds constitute marital assets only to the extent they were accumulated during the marriage, not before.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“retirement funds are marital assets only "[t]o the extent acquired during the marriage."”
The court cited Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer to establish the rule that only pension funds accumulated during the marriage are marital assets.
The husband borrowed $13,500 from his mother as a down payment on the marital home and gave a promissory note. In 1985, he repaid the loan with $14,65…
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 Division Of Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a final judgment dissolving the marriage of William Norman Kluessner and Frances Kay Kluessner. The trial court awarded Mr. Kluessner a special equity in the marital home, finding in pertinent part:
The [hjusband borrowed $13,500.00 from his mother as the down payment on this home, giving to his mother a promissory note. In 1985, the [hjusband paid his mother $14,653.00 representing principal and accrued interest on said promissory note, and the [c]ourt finds that the [h]us-band is entitled to a special equity in the marital home property to the extent of $14,653.00.
The wife challenges this award on the ground that while the original loan may have come from the husband’s mother, the loan was repaid with the funds derived from the husband’s pension plan. Generally, a pension fund may be considered as a marital asset. Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265, 268 (Fla.1986). However, the record reflects that the retirement fund required 15 years to accumulate, while the marriage endured for only four years of that time. Diffenderfer held that retirement funds are marital assets only “[t]o the extent acquired during the marriage.” Diffenderfer at 268. Consequently, we must reverse the judgment below and remand for determination of what pension funds were accumulated before and during the marriage, and for a determination of the parties’ respective interests in the marital home in light thereof. As to the other issue on appeal, we find no error and affirm.
Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.
BOOTH, C.J., and ERVIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.