ANTONIO MARCOS SALAZAR, HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL DIANE SALAZAR, WIFE, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retirement Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of the husband’s motion for relief from final judgment of dissolution of marriage and his motion for modification except insofar as it relates to the final judgment’s adoption of the parties’ stipulation providing that the wife receive 32.5 percent of the husband’s Naval retirement benefits when they vest. Following entry of the final judgment, the husband learned that he would be promoted to the rank of Commander with a concomitant increase in salary. Since the husband’s retirement benefits will accordingly be increased, the wife will receive 32.5 percent of retirement benefits made up in part of non-marital funds. The record does not reflect that it was intended by the parties that the wife would receive any benefits from what appears to be an uncontemplat- ed promotion. Consequently, we reverse the order denying the motion for modification to that extent and remand for further proceedings to readjust the wife’s interest in the husband’s retirement benefits according to law.
WOLF, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coons v. Cathlyn Ann Coons, 765 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…marital assets in § 61.075(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993), valuation of vested retirement plan could not include any contributions made after the original judgment of dissolution); Olsen v. Keefer, 714 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Salazar v. Salazar, 583 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Absent the entry and filing of a stipulation or other agreement in a contested dissolution action, the equitable distribution statute requires the trial court to make specific written factual findings to support the distribution…
-
Woodson v. Darlene GO, M.D., 166 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…Woodson, appeals from a final judgment entered, pursuant to a jury verdict, in favor of medical malpractice defendants Dr. Darlene Go, Dr. Louis Scala, and Florida Cardiology, P.A. (Ap-pellees). We affirm. In doing so, we recede from Lake v. Clark, 583 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), to the extent it holds that with only very broad limits, all qualified expert opinion testimony in a medical malpractice case is to be permitted, even if it is cumulative to other evidence. The underlying lawsuit stems from an…
-
Blevins v. Bonita Blevins, 649 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…on of an agreement negotiated and entered into after the dissolution of the parties’ marriage. Accordingly, the temporary retirement benefits cannot be treated as retirement benefits that accrued during the parties’ marriage. See Salazar v. Salazar, 583 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Howerton v. Howerton, 491 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The trial court erred in amending the March 22, 1993, Order for Payment of Retirement Benefits to award Ms. Blevins a portion of Mr. Blevins’s temporary retirement benefi…1 / 2