RICHARD A. ENNIS, FORMER HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
A. PRISCILLA ENNIS, FORMER WIFE, 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.
Former husband appealed a dissolution judgment challenging awards of permanent periodic alimony, child support, and retirement benefits distribution. The appellate court affirmed the child support award and the pension distribution methodology, but reversed the permanent periodic alimony award due to insufficient evidence, and remanded for reconsideration of the equitable distribution of marital assets.
The pension distribution language properly awards only benefits accrued during the marriage, consistent with prior precedent. The child support award was not erroneous. However, the evidence did not support the award of permanent periodic alimony given the wife's substantial income and employment advancement opportunities.
[1] An award of permanent periodic alimony is not supported by evidence showing the former wife earns a substantial income and has employment advancement opportunities.
[2] A trial court's award of retirement benefits accrued during a marriage should be based on benefits accrued only during the marriage, not on future salary increases after…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The trial court awarded each party one-half of the other party's pension plan "of the accrued benefits at actual times of payment measured from the date of employment through January [*565] 29, 1992 (the date of trial)."”
Describes the pension distribution award that the appellant challenged as potentially including post-dissolution benefits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard and Priscilla Ennis divorced. The trial court awarded each party one-half of the other party's pension plan accrued benefits measured from the…
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 Permanent Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The former husband, Richard A. Ennis, has appealed a final judgment of dissolution in regard to awards of permanent periodic alimony, child support and the equitable distribution of accrued retirement benefits.
The latter issue, as we see it, is primarily a semantical one. The trial court awarded each party one-half of the other party’s pension plan “of the accrued benefits at actual times of payment measured from the date of employment through January 29, 1992 (the date of trial).” The appellant’s concern is that this language could be interpreted as requiring computation of a percentage figure based on salary at the time of actual retirement in the future, which would mean that each party would receive benefits from the other which were earned after dissolution of the marriage. That is not our construction of the trial court’s language, which we believe requires an award based only on benefits accrued during the marriage consistent with our opinion in Bain v. Bain, 553 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Additionally, we find no error in the award of child support, but agree with the appellant that the evidence adduced before the trial court does not support an award of permanent periodic alimony. See Kennedy v. Kennedy, 303 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1974); Siegel v. Siegel, 564 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Fulks v. Fulks, 558 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Rezner v. Rezner, 553 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Griffith v. Griffith, 528 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Evans v. Evans, 443 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Snider v. Snider, 371 So. 2d 1056 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1202 (Fla.1980); Peck v. Peck, 291 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 301 So. 2d 776 (Fla.1974). As the trial court found, the former wife "now earns a substantial income and has employment advancement opportunity.” See Wismar v. Wismar, 522 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).
We reverse the judgment below, except for the dissolution of the marriage and the child support award. Since this reversal may disturb the trial court’s equitable dis: tribution scheme, we remand for reconsideration of the distribution of marital assets. See Bain at 1392.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GOSHORN, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- Addison L. Bain v. Ingeborg K. Bain, 553 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Kennedy v. Kennedy, 303 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1974)
- Evans v. Evans, 443 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Siegel v. Siegel, 564 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Snider v. Snider, 371 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Wismar v. Wismar, 522 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Keys v. State, 522 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Wells v. State, 558 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Fulks v. Fulks, 558 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Peck v. Leatrice K. Peck, 291 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)