KATHERINE S. CARLSON, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM C. CARLSON, APPELLEE
KATHERINE S. CARLSON, APPELLANT,
WILLIAM C. CARLSON, APPELLEE
549 So. 2d 1160
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1989)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
[*1161] PER CURIAM.
The sole issue in this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage is a challenge to the trial court’s failure to consider the parties’ pension plans as marital assets in accordance with the holding of Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1986).
The pension plans of both parties to this appeal accrued during their long-term marriage and vested before their separation. It was error to make no evidentiary findings on the value of the pension plans, and to make no finding as to the proper date for determining valuations. Bushore v. Bushore, 531 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); White v. White, 527 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
Reversed and remanded.
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)…n the marital assets,4 the trial court has made it appear that premarital and post-dissolution contributions were incorrectly valued within the 25%. See Trant v. Trant, 545 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (appeal after remand); and Carlson v. Carlson, 549 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). It is incumbent upon the trial court to calculate a retirement plan at its present value by the date of dissolution at the latest minus any premarital contributions. We note also a danger that the retirement pension will ultimate…
Authorities Cited
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986)
- White v. White, 527 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Elva Mae Bushore v. Bushore, 531 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Urbanek v. Bennett S. Cohn, 531 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)