MARILYN C. BURNS, APPELLANT,
v.
GERALD M. BURNS, 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.
In this divorce case, the Florida appellate court held that a portion of the husband's 1993 year-end bonus constitutes a marital asset subject to equitable distribution, reversing the trial court's implicit finding that the bonus was non-marital property. The court remanded the case for the trial court to determine the exact amount of bonus monies and redistribute them equitably.
The court held that the bonus money received by the husband in 1993 is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution to the extent it can be identified, despite the husband's argument that the bonus was paid out in 1994.
[1] A portion of a year-end bonus received by a spouse during the marriage is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution.
[2] Monies from a bonus that can be identified as having been used to purchase assets or deposited into accounts constitute a marital asset subject to equitable distribution.
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“a portion of the bonus is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution”
Establishes the core holding that bonus income earned during marriage qualifies as marital property
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarilyn and Gerald Burns were married on September 16, 1978, and separated on July 8, 1993. Gerald owned and operated Burns Services, Inc., during 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 Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
The former wife, Marilyn C. Bums, challenges several aspects of the trial court’s equitable distribution and other property issues in this dissolution of marriage action. We find merit only in her argument that the husband was paid a bonus for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, and that a por tion of the bonus is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. See § 61.075, Fla. Stat. (1993).
Marilyn and Gerald Burns were married on September 16, 1978, and separated on July 8, 1993. At the time of the marriage, Gerald owned a business known as Suncoast Duraclean, which was later incorporated and renamed Burns Services, Inc. (Bums Services). During the marriage, Marilyn Burns, who had a high school education and some college, worked at Bums Services. In addition she served as mother and stepmother to the minor children, housekeeper, and helpmate to Gerald for business and social entertainment. Gerald Bums initiated dissolution of marriage proceedings on July 15, 1993. He summarily discharged Marilyn Burns from her position with Bums Services on August 31,1993.
Gerald Bums’ 1993 income tax return indicates he received compensation in the amount of $762,369.00 for that tax year. The other evidence in the record supports the conclusion that a portion of that 1993 income was a year-end bonus. The former husband admits he received some of that bonus money, but he argues the bonus money was paid to him over the next eleven months and he received little compensation during that period. However, his 1994 tax return demonstrates he received compensation during that year in excess of $300,000.00. This 1994 compensation is most assuredly not the same monies he paid taxes on in 1993.
While it is difficult to determine how much of the 1993 income is derived from the bonus, we know the former husband used part of this bonus to purchase a new residence, and he placed some monies in a Paine Webber account and some in a CAP account. To the extent these monies can be identified, they represent a marital asset which should be equitably distributed.
We, therefore, remand this case to the trial court to determine the amount of bonus monies received by the former husband and to equitably distribute those proceeds.
THREADGILL, C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.