DOROTHY J. MCREYNOLDS, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD M. MCREYNOLDS, 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 decision that treated the husband's vested pension as a non-marital asset. The court held that pensions accrued during marriage constitute marital property subject to equitable distribution, and remanded for proper consideration of the pension in dividing assets and awarding alimony.
A spouse's pension or retirement benefits accrued during marriage constitute marital assets subject to equitable distribution. The trial court erred in finding the pension was not a marital asset. Additionally, when ample assets are available, the court must use equitable distribution principles rather than treating unavailable pension benefits as a source of support through alimony.
[1] A spouse's entitlement to vested pension or retirement benefits accrued during a marriage constitutes a marital asset for purposes of equitable distribution.
[2] A trial court errs in finding that a spouse's vested pension benefits, entirely accrued during the marriage, are not a marital asset.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 well settled that a spouse's entitlement to pension or retirement benefits must be considered a marital asset for purposes of equitably distributing marital property.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that pensions accrued during marriage are marital property, contradicting the trial court's finding.
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 divorcing, and the husband had accumulated pension benefits entirely during the marriage. The trial court issued an amended final jud…
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
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellant, Dorothy J. McReynolds, challenges an amended final judgment entered in a dissolution of marriage action. We find that the trial court improperly dealt with the husband’s vested pension funds in determining the wife’s entitlement to equitable distribution and alimony. We, accordingly, reverse.
At the conclusion of the proceedings in this matter, the court entered an amended final judgment dissolving the parties’ mar riage, dividing their property, and awarding the wife permanent alimony. The judgment contained a specific finding that the husband’s pension, the entire amount of which accrued during the parties’ marriage, was not a marital asset. The judgment went on to provide, however, that the wife had earned an equitable right to the pension benefits of the husband, and apparently, although we cannot be sure, the court considered it when establishing the amount of permanent alimony.
It is well settled that a spouse’s entitlement to pension or retirement benefits must be considered a marital asset for purposes of equitably distributing marital property. Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1986); Hatcher v. Hatcher, 533 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). See also Smith v. Smith, 537 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Tripp v. Tripp, 510 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Howerton v. Howerton, 491 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The trial court, accordingly, erred in finding that the husband’s pension was not a marital asset.
Once a pension is considered as a marital asset, it may be treated as property subject to equitable distribution or as a source of support obligations. Rentz v. Rentz, 535 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Assuming that the trial court had not made the specific finding that the pension was not a marital asset, the remaining portions of the judgment would have indicated that the court considered the pension as a marital asset and then used it as a source of support. That portion of the judgment which provides for permanent alimony contains a finding that the appellant had earned an equitable right in the pension benefit of the appellee. Pursuant to this court’s holding in Hatcher, this language would sufficiently establish that the trial court considered the pension in determining distribution of the marital assets and satisfy the mandate of Diffenderfer. We would still find that the trial court erred, however, because there were ample assets available to require equitable distribution rather than considering the yet unavailable pension benefits as a means of support. Under the facts of this case, the result reached “shortchanged the wife, and we, accordingly, would find that the court abused its discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Tripp.
Because the remedies of equitable property division and alimony awards are interrelated, those portions of the final judgment which deal with property division and alimony are hereby reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of such awards in the light of Dif-fenderfer. The court should do equity between the parties according to the principles expressed in Canakaris.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DeLOACH v. Ruthie Mae DeLOACH, 590 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…alimony or as a marital asset. See, e.g., Littleton v. Littleton, 555 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Wehrly v. Wehrly, 440 So. 2d 42, 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Hennessey v. Hennessey, 551 So. 2d 597, 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); McReynolds v. McReynolds, 546 So. 2d 1153, 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Hartzell v. Hartzell, 434 So. 2d 353, 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). In Hennessey, the Fourth District Court of Appeal approved a trial court’s inclusion of a nonvested pension plan in its equitable distribution of the parties’…
-
Marie-Anne Nicole Grivet Johnson v. Johnson, 602 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…how this asset was treated. Once a pension, or other type of retirement benefit, is considered a marital asset, that asset may be treated as property subject to equitable distribution or as a source of support obligations. McReynolds v. McReynolds, 546 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Rentz v. Rentz, 535 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). In the final judgment the court found, as mentioned above, that: “The Court has considered the Wife’s claim for equitable distribution of the Husband’s Military Retirement Plan…
-
Littleton v. Littleton, 555 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…d therefore was not using or in need of his retirement plan as a source for paying the alimony award, the trial court properly considered the retirement plan as a marital asset for the purpose of equitable distribution. See McReynolds v. McReynolds, 546 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). We do find, however, that the trial judge erred in directing the former husband either to maintain the wife’s health insurance through his employment or pay the wife $100 per month in order to defray her expenses for the purchas…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986)
- Howerton v. Howerton, 491 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Jones v. State, 533 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Lucinda Tripp v. Odell Tripp, 510 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Crawford & Co. v. Wilson, 535 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Gen. Dev. Corp. v. Quinn, 537 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)