JERRY E. BARNES, APPELLANT,
v.
PEGGY H. BARNES, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1992-02-07
No. 91-659
COWART and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
592 So. 2d 1260 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1992)

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.


Holding

The court held that the award of a portion of the husband's civil service retirement annuity was improper due to insufficient evidence of its value at the time of dissolution.


Facts & Procedural History

The parties divorced in May 1990 after a marriage that began in 1963. The husband earned civil service retirement credit during the marriage and had t…

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.


Opinion of the Court
COBB, Judge.

COBB, Judge.

The appellant, Jerry E. Barnes, raises three issues on appeal of a dissolution judgment: (1) the amount of monthly alimony awarded to his wife, Peggy Barnes; (2) the award to the wife of 31.67% of the husband’s civil service retirement annuity; and (3) the trial court’s division of the parties’ tangible personal property. We agree with the appellant in respect to the second issue, but affirm on the other two.

The facts show that the parties were married in 1963. Thereafter, Barnes earned 19 years of civil service credit during the marriage, and will be eligible to retire in May, 2001, a point in time 11 years subsequent to the termination of the marital relationship in May, 1990. Prior to December, 1984, at which time he went to work for NASA, Barnes earned a pension benefit through his employment with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Those TVA pension payments ($307.94 per month) will begin on October 1, 2001. The trial court ordered that the wife should receive one half of those payments, and that award is not challenged on appeal.

We disagree with the award to the wife of 31.67% of the NASA retirement benefits. In this case neither party presented sufficient evidence to the trial court as to the value of the NASA pension as of May 7, 1990. That determination must be made by the trial court, and the wife is entitled to one-half of that amount. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause for valuation and distribution of the NASA pension in accordance with the principles as outlined in Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1986) and Howerton v. Howerton, 491 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

COWART and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw