ALAN HERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARILYN HERMAN, 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.
Alan Herman appeals a trial court order on remand regarding division of his government pension with his ex-wife Marilyn and the treatment of her pension share in his subsequent bankruptcy proceeding. The court affirmed, holding that the ex-wife's pension share should be characterized as both support/maintenance and equitable distribution, making it exempt from the bankruptcy stay.
The court affirmed the trial court's determination. The characterization of the pension share as both support/maintenance and equitable distribution was proper and did not constitute Diffenderfer error. The pension share was not subject to the bankruptcy stay.
[1] A trial court's order on remand is presumed to be consistent with the mandate of a prior appellate decision.
[2] Awards made by a trial court are within the bounds of permissible discretion unless an abuse of discretion is shown.
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“Diffenderfer is aimed at avoiding the double-counting of assets when a trial court makes equitable distribution and support awards.”
Explains the purpose of the Diffenderfer doctrine and distinguishes it from the case at hand
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court awarded the former wife one-half of the proceeds of a government pension the former husband was receiving, which was a marital asset. …
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 Support And Maintenance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Alan Herman appeals, and Marilyn Herman cross-appeals, the final order of the trial court on remand from this court’s decision in Herman v. Herman, 624 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). After careful consideration of the parties’ contentions, we conclude that the trial court order is consistent with the mandate of this court’s prior decision, and that the trial court’s awards are within the bounds of permissible discretion. •
After the trial court made its awards on remand, the former husband filed a petition in bankruptcy.
The trial court had awarded the former wife one-half of the proceeds of a government pension the former husband was receiving. The pension was a marital asset.
The trial court was called on to determine whether the former wife’s share of the pension payments was subject to the bankruptcy stay.
The trial court entered an order determining that under the facts of this case, the former wife’s share of the former husband’s pension should be viewed as being in the nature of support and maintenance, as well as equitable distribution.
Consequently the trial court ruled that the former wife’s share of the former husband’s retirement payments were not subject to the bankruptcy stay, although other provisions of the trial court decree were stayed.
The former husband contends that the trial court ruling on the bankruptcy issue was contrary to Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1986).
We disagree. Diffen-derfer is aimed at avoiding the double-counting of assets when a trial court makes equitable distribution and support awards. See id. at 267-68; Waldman v. Waldman, 520 So. 2d 87, 90 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 531 So. 2d 169 (Fla.1988). There was no Diffenderfer error when the trial court made its award in this case.
The trial court’s subsequent order relative to the bankruptcy stay did not involve any Diffenderfer issue, and we find no legal error in the trial court’s determination. See generally 3 Family Law and Practice § 37.01[b], at 37-20 (Arnold H. Rutkin, ed., 1995) (“[T]he goals of equitable distribution and spousal maintenance are frequently similar if not identical.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986)
- Waldman v. Waldman, 520 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Herman v. Herman, 624 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)