RICHARD TRANT, APPELLANT,
v.
JANICE TRANT, 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 a dissolution of marriage case, the Florida Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's award of permanent alimony and a 45% share of the husband's pension to the wife, but remanded to clarify that the wife is not entitled to any increased pension value accruing after the dissolution date.
The court affirmed the awards of permanent alimony and pension distribution, but held that the wife is not entitled to any increased value of the pension fund accruing after the dissolution date. The court remanded for clarification of whether the 45% share should be calculated based on present value as of the dissolution date rather than at the time benefits are paid.
[1] A trial court may award permanent, periodic alimony that is terminable upon the death or remarriage of the recipient spouse.
[2] Permanent alimony may be ordered to continue until the payor spouse retires and begins receiving pension funds.
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“We affirm the final judgment. However, we find that the wife is not entitled to the increased value of the pension fund after the date of dissolution.”
The core holding that post-dissolution pension appreciation is not available to the non-earning spouse.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were husband and wife in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court awarded the wife $386 per month in permanent alimony (termi…
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 Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Appellant, husband, appeals a final judgment of dissolution challenging the award to appellee, wife, of a forty-five percent share of husband’s pension as equitable distribution of assets and $386 per month permanent alimony.
The final judgment provided as follows:
3. The Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner the sum of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX ($386.00) DOLLARS per month as permanent, periodic alimony terminable upon the death or remarriage of the Wife. This alimony shall continue until such time that Respondent retires from the Florida Highway Patrol and begins to receive his pension funds.
4. The Petitioner is awarded a forty-five (45%) percent share of Respondent’s pension from the Florida Highway Patrol as equitable distribution of assets. The Petitioner is entitled to receive, and has a presently vested ownership interest in, 45% of any mo nies paid to Respondent by way of the pension fund, either by monthly retirement benefits, by lump sum, or under any option exercised by the Respondent.
We affirm the final judgment. However, we find that the wife is not entitled to the increased value of the pension fund after the date of dissolution. Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1986) and Howerton v. Howerton, 491 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). It is unclear from the judgment whether the forty-five (45%) percent is to be calculated at the time the benefits are paid rather than based on present value. We therefore remand this cause for valuation of the pension plan and the entry of an amended final judgment reflecting the wife’s monetary entitlement as of the date the judgment was entered.
Affirmed in part, remanded in part.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Addison L. Bain v. Ingeborg K. Bain, 553 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…. Similarly, the valuation of a retirement plan should exclude any contributions made after the original final judgment of dissolution. Carroll v. Carroll, 528 So. 2d 931, 933 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 538 So. 2d 1255 (Fla.1988); Trant v. Trant, 522 So. 2d 72, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Howerton v. Howerton, 491 So. 2d 614, 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Finally, the trial court .should consider all the relevant factors listed in section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988). In the instant case, it is obvious…
-
Trant v. Trant, 545 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…PATTERSON, Judge. This is an appeal from an amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered after remand in Trant v. Trant, 522 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (Trant I). We reverse. At the time of the original final judgment, April 1, 1987, the parties had been married 22.4 years. During the entire marriage the husband was employed with the Florida Highway Patrol and is a vested member…
-
Boyett v. Eldis Raymell Boyett, 683 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…ributions made after the original final judgment of dissolution.” Bain v. Bain, [*1144] 558 So. 2d 1389, 1391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (citing Carroll v. Carroll, 528 So. 2d 931, 933 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 538 So. 2d 1255 (Fla.1988); Trant v. Trant, 522 So. 2d 72, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Howerton v. Howerton, 491 So. 2d 614, 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (stating that it is improper to permit the former wife to share in the benefits acquired after the dissolution of the marriage by the former husband’s continued em…
Authorities Cited
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986)
- Howerton v. Howerton, 491 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)