JOHN M. GERBAS, APPELLANT,
v.
DIANE M. GERBAS, 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.
The Fourth District affirmed the dissolution and custody award but reversed and remanded the pension distribution and support awards, finding the trial court erred in not allocating pre-marital pension accruals to the husband and in awarding excessive alimony and child support without adequate findings regarding the husband's ability to pay.
The trial court erred in failing to allocate pre-marital pension accruals to the husband and in awarding alimony and child support that appeared excessive without adequate findings regarding the husband's ability to pay.
[1] In a dissolution proceeding, a trial court must allocate to the husband that portion of his pension fund that accrued before the marriage.
[2] Upon remand for reconsideration of alimony and child support awards, the trial court must make specific findings of fact regarding the obligor's ability to meet the suppo…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage case, the trial court awarded primary residential custody of the children to the wife, authorized relocation to Kentucky,…
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 Child Relocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We affirm the dissolution, the award of primary residential custody of the children to the wife, and the authorization for the wife to relocate with the children to Kentucky. See DeCamp v. Hein, 541 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We also affirm the trial court’s decision to leave the parties responsible for their individual or joint debts, and to make the husband responsible for the payment of the wife’s attorney’s fees.
On the issues of the distribution of the pension fund and the amount of child support and alimony, we remand with directions for reconsideration by the trial court. We agree with the husband that the trial court erred in not allocating to him that portion of his pension fund that accrued to him before his marriage. We also agree that the total amount of alimony and child support awarded appears to be excessive in light of the evidence of the husband’s current income. Upon reconsideration, the trial court shall resolve these issues and make specific findings of fact as to the ability of the husband to meet the support obligations imposed upon him, as well as other findings to support the awards made. The trial court may consider the existing record as well as additional evidence and argument by the parties. Any supplemental final judgment shall be subject to appeal by either party.
ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and KAHN, MARTIN D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blythe v. Blythe, 592 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…n-marital, with the exception of the husband’s Indiana State Trooper’s pension fund. It was error for the court not to have allocated to the husband that portion of the pension fund that accrued to him before the couple’s marriage. Gerbas v. Gerbos, 564 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). On remand, the court should determine that portion, and adjust the distribution of this asset accordingly. The final judgment also provided that the husband would be responsible for furnishing health insurance for the wife, of…
-
Downey v. Margherita Downey, 843 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…quitably distributed. Blythe v. Blythe, 592 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)(“It was error for the court not to have allocated to the husband that portion of the pension fund that accrued to him before the couple’s marriage”) (citing Gerbas v. Gerbas, 564 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)); Blase v. Blase, 704 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that husband was entitled to his premarital share of his 401k plan.). We find unpersuasive the wife’s argument that the husband should be precluded from raising this…
Authorities Cited
- DeCAMP v. Darwin Uhle Hein, 541 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)