RAYMOND HENNESSEY, APPELLANT,
v.
EDITH HENNESSEY, 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 affirmed the trial court's final judgment and awards to the wife, finding no abuse of discretion. The court also addressed whether nonvested pension plans constitute marital property for equitable distribution purposes, ultimately declining to decide the issue on the merits while noting that new legislation had effectively resolved the question.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment and awards, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The court declined to decide whether a nonvested pension plan is marital property because the judgment would be affirmed either way given the specific facts presented.
[1] A trial court's final judgment of dissolution and related awards will be affirmed if the court did not abuse its discretion based on the facts presented.
[2] A spouse's entitlement to pension or retirement benefits must be considered a marital asset for purposes of equitable distribution.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion given the facts presented in this case”
States the standard of review and the basis for affirming the trial court's judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRaymond Hennessey appealed a final judgment of dissolution and various awards made to his wife, Edith Hennessey. The case involved equitable distribut…
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 Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final judgment of dissolution and the various awards made to the wife thereunder as we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion given the facts presented in this case. See Noah v. Noah, 491 So. 2d 1124 (Fla.1986); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980); Williamson v. Williamson, 367 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1979).
One issue of equitable distribution involved the consideration of a nonvested pension plan. The appellant claims that it should not be valued as marital property, citing Summers v. Summers, 491 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). That case relied on Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986) which held that a spouse’s entitlement to pension or retirement benefits must be considered as a marital asset for purposes of equitable distribution. In Diffenderfer the pension plan was vested and matured. Therefore the supreme court has yet to consider whether a non-vested plan is a marital asset for purposes of equitable distribution. In light of the facts of this case, we do not need to decide the issue because we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, whether or not the pension plan is considered in the distribution.
Although not applicable to this case, we note that the legislature enacted section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1988), Equitable Distribution of Marital Assets and Liabilities, effective October 1, 1988. That statute includes in its definition of marital assets “all vested and nonvested benefits, rights, and funds accrued during the marriage in retirement, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, deferred compensation, and insurance plans and programs.” Fla.Stat. § 61.075(3)(a)4. (1988). This effectively eliminates the holding of Summers. The task for the marital bar will be to develop methods of valuing nonvested pension and retirement rights which must include of necessity contingencies of vesting together with the calculation of present value. We encourage the bar to approach valuation methods with a view of reasonableness, because the cost in expert fees of calculating values may exceed the benefits to be derived. A good discussion of valuation of retirements plans is found in Golden, L., Equitable Distribution of Property, 169-77 and 227-232 (1983).
Affirmed.
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., 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)…not vested, that pensions may be considered either as a source of 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 n…
-
Glover v. Glover, 601 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…h v. DeLoach, 590 So. 2d 956, 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we stated that the supreme court in Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1986), did not preclude consideration of nonvested pensions as marital property. See Hennessey v. Hennessey, 551 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); cf. Summers v. Summers, 491 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We reverse that part of the final judgment awarding the parties their own respective retirement benefits and remand for additional evidence and appropriate findings of…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986)
- Noah v. Noah, 491 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1986)
- Williamson v. Veva C. Williamson, 367 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1979)
- Margeson v. G. Pierce Wood Mem'l Hosp. & the Adm'r, 491 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Summers v. Summers, 491 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)