CAROLYN S. HAYDEN, APPELLANT,
v.
ROGER C. HAYDEN, 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.
This case clarifies which party bears the burden of proving pension value for Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) on remand. The court held that the party holding the pension is best positioned to provide the necessary information.
The party holding the pension has the burden to provide the necessary information for the court to determine the value of benefits for a QDRO order, as they have better access to the relevant facts and figures.
“The person with the pension obviously has access to the facts and figures necessary for the trial court to make a determination of the value of benefits....”
Establishes that the party holding the pension has better access to necessary information.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought clarification on who has the burden to prove the value of a pension and payments for the purpose of issuing a QDRO order upon rem…
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 Modification Of Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant has asked for clarification as to who, on remand, has the burden to prove the value of the pension and payments for purposes of determining whether to issue a QDRO order. As we said in Childers v. Childers, 640 So. 2d 108, 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), “[t]he person with the pension obviously has access to the facts and figures necessary for the trial court to make a determination of the value of benefits.... ” While we were determining equitable distribution in that case, the necessary information regarding the pension for purposes of a QDRO order also can come from the person with the pension. In the case of a QDRO, the value of the plan is not required to be calculated. What is necessary is the amount of payments under the plan, the amount to be deducted from each payment, and the term of those payments plus other information required by statute. The person holding the pension is in a better position to obtain this information. If necessary, the court could order its production by the husband. If the husband is interested in avoiding expense, he could confirm the accuracy of notarized documents the wife received from the pension administrator before the first trial but which were kept out at the husband’s objection.
DELL, WARNER, and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Overbey v. Overbey, 698 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1997)…. Under this rule, even if a payor parent experiences a reduction in income or net worth, a request for a reduction in child support payments may be denied if that parent has the ability to provide the necessary support. See, e.g., Hayden v. Hayden, 662 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). To that end, section 61.30, Florida Statutes (1995), which sets forth guidelines to be followed in establishing the amount of child support that must be paid, provides: Income shall be imputed to an unemployed or underemployed…
-
Stavros Konsoulas v. Konsoulas, 904 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…l court abused its discretion by imputing $110,000 annual income to Stavros. Clearly, a court may impute income where a party is willfully earning less and “the party has the capability to earn more by the use of his best efforts.” Hayden v. Hayden, 662 So. 2d 713, 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Cushman v. Cushman, 585 So. 2d 485, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Although the trial court is free to determine the credibility of witnesses, restraints on imputation exist in the form of a required two-step analysis. First, the…
-
Mascola v. Lusskin, 727 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…uld impute an income according to that which could be earned by the best efforts to gain employment equal to parent’s capabilities, and on that basis an amount of support as if the parent were in fact earning the income so imputed. Hayden v. Hayden, 662 So. 2d 713, 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The pertinent cases are Pickett v. Pickett, 709 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Waugh v. Waugh, 679 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); and Waskin v. Waskin, 484 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev denied, 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.19…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- MacKey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1988)
- Broward Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. State, 495 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Kinne v. Kinne, 599 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Childers v. Childers, 640 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Schneider v. Schneider, 348 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Avery v. Avery, 548 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Tolbert Enters., Inc. v. Sonnenblick-Goldmansoutheast Corp., 295 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Condon v. Condon, 295 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Roberts v. State, 352 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Eady v. Eady, 624 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)