HARRY JAMES ZABOROWSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
JANICE MAY ZABOROWSKI, 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.
A former husband appeals a divorce judgment that awarded his former wife 50% of his pension benefits accumulated over 19 years before the marriage. The court reversed, holding that premarital contributions to a pension plan are not marital assets subject to equitable distribution absent a gift or conveyance, and that the burden is on the claiming spouse to prove her interest in the pension, not on the pensioned employee to prove the value of premarital contributions.
Premarital contributions to a pension plan are not marital assets and are not subject to equitable distribution unless the pension-owning spouse gifts or assigns them to the other spouse or they are awarded as lump sum alimony. The burden is on the claiming spouse (the former wife) to prove her interest in the pension and its value, not on the pensioned employee to prove the value of premarital contributions.
[1] Assets acquired prior to a marriage are not marital assets subject to equitable distribution.
[2] Premarital assets remain the property of the owner spouse upon dissolution of marriage absent evidence of a gift or conveyance to the other spouse.
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“Assets acquired prior to a marriage are not marital assets.”
Establishes the foundational principle that premarital property does not become marital property upon marriage.
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 married for 13 years. The former husband had contributed to a pension plan for 19 years prior to the marriage. At dissolution, the tr…
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 Premarital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
The former husband appeals the final judgment dissolving the parties’ 13 year marriage. He contends that the court erred in awarding the former wife 50% of his pension benefits as an “equitable distribution” of marital assets when he had worked and contributed to his pension plan for 19 years prior to the marriage. We agree and reverse.
Assets acquired prior to a marriage are not marital assets. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). To the contrary, assets obtained premaritally remain the property of the owner spouse in the absence of evidence of a gift or conveyance of same to the owner’s spouse. As this court stated in Horton v. Horton, 433 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983):
When a marriage partner brings his or her own property to the marriage and does not make a transfer of the asset or any portion of it to the spouse then that asset remains separate property. Upon dissolution of the marriage the asset is still owned by the original owner. Unless the asset, or a portion of it, is awarded as lump sum alimony then the court must recognize the proper ownership of the property and not take it from the owner. Id. at 1387. The same principle should be applicable to pension benefits and Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1986) does not mandate a contrary result. Here, the value of 19 years of premarital contributions was not a marital asset and thus was not subject to equitable distribution, absent a showing by the former wife that the former husband gave or assigned to her any portion of his right to the value of those years of contributions, or a proper award of an interest in the premarital value of the pension benefits as lump sum alimony.
Since Diffenderfer’s holding that pension benefits acquired during the marriage are marital assets, only one case has squarely addressed the question of how to treat premarital contributions to the pension plan. In Reyher v. Reyher, 495 So. 2d 797 (Fla.2d DCA 1986) the court held that “premarital contributions, when proven, should be excluded from an equitable distribution of pension plans.” We agree. However, we cannot agree with our sister court’s determination that “[i]n order to exclude any premarital contributions, the ‘owner’ [the pensioned employee] must prove the value of the premarital contributions (and appreciation of that value, if any).” Id. at 800.
Reyher recognises that the analysis in the equitable distribution of pension plans begins with 100% ownership by one party (in this ease the former husband), and we agree. Where we depart from Rey-her is its conclusion that the “owner” must then prove the value of the non-marital portion. We deem it the burden of the claiming spouse, in this case the former wife, to prove what she claims, i.e., an interest in the pension plan and its value, in keeping with the recognized rule of law that he (or she) who claims must prove.
We therefore reverse that portion of the final judgment which awards a 50% interest in the pension fund to the wife, and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings which may include the taking of additional testimony from the parties as to the premarital and postmarital values of the pension fund in accordance with the principles set forth in this opinion, and which shall thereafter culminate in a division of the pension funds in accordance herewith and in accordance with the principles of law established in Diffenderfer. To the extent indicated herein, we acknowledge conflict with Reyher. REVERSED and REMANDED.
SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Moon v. Moon, 594 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…7-1988 and 1988-1989, the parties must on remand introduce further evidence. We wish to emphasize that the party alleging entitlement to an asset is generally required to introduce evidence which shows such entitlement. See Zaborowski v. Zaborowski, 547 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). We recognize the burden placed upon trial courts by the equitable distribution statute, section 61.075, and by various cases requiring factual findings. See Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 536 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Turner v. T…
-
Addison L. Bain v. Ingeborg K. Bain, 553 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…lmutter v. Perlmutter, 523 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1354 (Fla.1988). See also § 61.075(4), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988).3 Regarding retirement pensions, premarital contributions should be excluded. Zaborowski v. Zaborowski, 547 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Reyher v. Reyher, 495 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). 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,…1 / 2
-
Massis v. Radi S. Massis, 551 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…marital residence to the husband, and the denial of rehabilitative alimony and attorney’s fees, and remand to the trial court for reconsideration of the denial of those issues. SHIVERS, C.J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur. . Zaborowski v. Zaborowski, 547 So. 2d 1296, 1297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Bowen v. Bowen, 543 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Szemborski v. Szemborski, 512 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Reyher v. Reyher, 495 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986)
- Reyher v. Reyher, 495 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Brenton H. Horton v. Horton, 433 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)