STANLEY JOE PARIS, APPELLANT,
v.
LINDA ANNE GREENE PARIS, 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 appeal, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a final dissolution judgment awarding the former wife permanent periodic alimony and marital assets, but reversed and remanded regarding the calculation method for distributing Lockheed retirement benefits to comply with the Boyett standard excluding early retirement penalties.
The court affirmed the award of permanent periodic alimony and the valuation of marital assets but reversed the pension distribution method. The former wife must receive compensation for any delay in receiving her pension share at the same rate the former husband would receive by delaying retirement, and cannot share in any post-dissolution salary increases, but the pension cannot be used as a source for alimony beyond equitable distribution purposes.
[1] A trial court may not use a spouse's retirement pension as a source for both alimony and equitable distribution.
[2] When valuing pension benefits for equitable distribution, any penalty for early retirement must be excluded.
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“the valuation of pension benefits must be made excluding any penalty for early retirement”
Establishes the legal standard from Boyett that the trial court must follow in recalculating pension distribution
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStanley Joe Paris and Linda Anne Greene Paris divorced. The trial court awarded the former wife permanent periodic alimony and a portion of marital as…
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
[*890] COBB, Judge.
The issues on this appeal are the result of a final judgment of dissolution wherein the former wife, Linda Anne Greene Paris, was awarded permanent periodic alimony in addition to a portion of the marital assets. The former husband, Stanley Joe Paris, questions the permanent periodic alimony, the lower court’s value of the marital home and distribution of pension benefits.
After careful consideration of the arguments and record, we affirm except in regard to the method utilized by the trial court to award the Lockheed retirement benefits to the former wife.
It is clear that the lower court followed the “deferred distribution” method1 of calculating retirement benefits to be paid to the wife upon the husband’s actual retirement. The former wife was to receive one-half of a fractional part, “whose numerator is 245 and whose denominator is 299, with the retirement benefit calculated as if the husband had retired on March 31, 1996.” The court retained jurisdiction over the parties and the retirement benefits of the former husband until he actually retired and the benefit was established.
In Boyett v. Boyett, 683 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), aff'd, 703 So. 2d 451 (Fla.1997), the Florida Supreme Court made it clear that the valuation of pension benefits must be made excluding any penalty for early retirement. Thus, the former wife here must be compensated for any delay in receiving her share of the pension at the same rate that the former husband would be compensated by delaying retirement. The former wife could not, however, share in any increase in salary earned by the former husband after the dissolution. As an aside, we note that the former husband’s retirement pension cannot be used as a source from which alimony is paid in addition to equitable distribution purposes. Bain v. Bain, 687 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
Accordingly, the final judgment of dissolution is affirmed except for distribution of the Lockheed retirement pension which we reverse and remand to the lower court with instructions to follow Boyett.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
ANTOON, J., and ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge, concur. . See DeLoach v. DeLoach, 590 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Acker v. Acker, 904 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2005)…WELLS, J. We have for review the decision in Acker v. Acker, 821 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), which certified conflict with the decisions in Rogers v. Rogers, 746 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Paris v. Paris, 707 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Ellis v. Ellis, 699 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Bain v. Bain, 687 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); and Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the fo…1 / 3
-
Swanson v. Swanson, 869 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…First, the trial court erred in calculating the Husband’s pension value based upon an early retirement penalty. Florida law prohibits acknowledgment of an early retirement penalty when calculating the value of pension benefits. See Paris v. Paris, 707 So. 2d 889, 890 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(“the Florida Supreme Court made it clear that the valuation of pension benefits must be made excluding any penalty for early retirement.”), disagreed with on other grounds by Acker v. Acker, 821 So. 2d 1088, 1091 (Fla. 3d DC…
-
Acker v. Acker, 821 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…asset for equitable distribution or as income available to determine a spouse’s ability to pay alimony, but not both.” Rogers v. Rogers, 746 So. 2d 1176, 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Hollinger v. Baur, 719 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Paris v. Paris, 707 So. 2d 889, 890 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Ellis v. Ellis, 699 So. 2d 280, 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Bain v. Bain, 687 So. 2d 79, 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Waldman v. Waldman, 520 So. 2d at 90. We surmise that thi…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- DeLOACH v. Ruthie Mae DeLOACH, 590 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Eldis Raymell Boyett v. Boyett, 703 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1997)
- Boyett v. Eldis Raymell Boyett, 683 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Hayes v. State, 687 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Addison L. Bain v. Ingeborg K. Bain, 687 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)