SAMMY NELSON, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
KATHERINE NELSON, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 affirmed the trial court's award to Katherine Nelson of one-half the increase in value of a jointly owned retirement account during the marriage, but remanded to correct a computational error in the account valuation.
An inherited initial investment in a retirement account is not a marital asset, but the increase in value of jointly owned retirement accounts during marriage is subject to equitable distribution.
[1] An inherited initial investment in a retirement account does not constitute a marital asset subject to equitable distribution, but the increase in value of a jointly owne…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSammy Nelson and Katherine Nelson were divorcing parties who jointly owned a retirement account established with a $30,000 inheritance Sammy received …
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 Equitable Distribution Of Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sammy Nelson appeals a final judgment of dissolution contending that the trial court erred in awarding Katherine Nelson, appellee/cross-appellant, one-half of the amount by which the parties’ jointly owned retirement account increased in value during the marriage. We affirm. See § 61.076(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). Katherine Nelson cross-appeals, contending that the trial court erred in determining that the initial $30,000 investment establishing that retirement account, which Sammy Nelson received as an inheritance from his mother, did not constitute a marital asset. We find the trial court’s order is supported by competent substantial evidence and affirm. See Amato v. Amato, 596 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); see also Williams v. Williams, 686 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Robinson v. Robinson, 655 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Woodard v. Woodard, 634 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 6th DCA 1994); Thibault v. Thibault, 632 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Finally, the trial court did not err in awarding Katherine Nelson her share of the increased value of the retirement annuity account from the date of the parties’ separation to the date of the final hearing. Both parties agree, however, that the only evidence of the value of the annuity as of April 30, 1998 was $93,980.71, not $96,-437.05, as erroneously reflected in the order on appeal. Accordingly, the case must be remanded to the trial court to compute the award based upon the correct amount.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ERVIN, VAN NORTWICK AND BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Woodard v. Jaymie Sands Woodard, 634 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Williams v. Neil M.J. Williams, 686 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Gilda Amato v. Amato, 596 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Thibault v. Thibault, 632 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Dyer v. State, 655 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Robinson v. Lurana Dupree Robinson, 655 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)