BARRY B. ZWIBELMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
KATHLEEN N. ZWIBELMAN, 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.
The court held that the parties should resolve disputes regarding retirement plans by reviewing documents, and if disputes remain, submit to the trial court. The final judgment is affirmed subject to this qualification.
The trial court found both parties' retirement plans to be marital assets and divided them 50/50. The husband appealed, arguing the General Master err…
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 Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Barry B. Zwibelman appeals, and Kathleen N. Zwibelman cross-appeals, a final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
The trial court found that both parties’ retirement plans were marital assets and directed that they be divided on a 50/50 basis. The husband contends that the General Master who tried the case erred by finding that he has three retirement plans, whereas in fact he only has two. The husband says that the General Master misinterpreted evidence relating to an investment at Fidelity Fund as indicating that it is a separate retirement plan, whereas the husband contends that the Fidelity Fund investment is actually included within his existing faculty retirement plan.
It is unnecessary to review the evidence in detail because the wife concedes that she is only entitled to 50 percent of the retirement plans which actually exist. She acknowledges that if the Fidelity Fund investment is included within the faculty retirement plan, then she is only entitled to 50 percent of the actually existing retirement funds. She agrees that the Fidelity Fund investment is not to be double counted.
In accordance with the former wife’s concession and suggestion, this matter shall be resolved by review of appropriate documents by the parties. If any dispute remains, the matter shall be submitted to the trial court for resolution.
With regard to the remaining issues raised by the parties, we conclude that the trial court’s rulings were within the bounds of permissible discretion. Subject to the above-stated qualification regarding the former husband’s retirement funds, the final judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Karlynn Blagrove v. Smith, 701 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…independent examinations. As Hernando County and Hillsborough County are geographically close to one another, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that respondent’s request was reasonable. Cf. McKenney v. Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc., 686 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Because the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law, the petition for certiorari is denied. PETITION DENIED. W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.…
-
Scales v. Swill, 715 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…applies. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360' only states that the request for an examination must specify a reasonable place. Courts have upheld rulings requiring parties to travel outside their home counties. See McKenney v. Airport Rent-A-Car, 686 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). In Blagrove v. Smith, 701 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), this court approved the trial court’s ruling that a'plaintiff in a personal injury action must travel from Hernando County to Tampa in Hillsborough County for the indepe…1 / 2
-
Bodzin v. Leviter, 174 So. 3d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…amination in Florida. See Youngblood v. Michaud, 593 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (independent medical examination of defendant should occur only in county of defendant’s residence). Respondent’s reliance on McKenney v. Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc., 686 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), is misplaced. There, the trial court required a plaintiff to appear for an independent medical examination in the county where the plaintiff filed suit, and our court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.…1 / 2