PATRICK JOHN MOTIL, APPELLANT,
v.
VICTORIA LOUISE MOTIL, 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.
An income deduction order cannot be used to effectuate a court's equitable distribution scheme for marital assets.
The husband challenged an income deduction order requiring his pension plan to make payments to the wife. The payments represented the wife's share of…
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 Pension Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Patrick John Motil, the husband, challenges the income deduction order requiring his pension plan in Ohio to make payments to Victoria Louise Motil, the wife, through the Pinellas County Central Depository. He argues that the trial court impermissibly used the income deduction order to effectuate the court’s equitable distribution scheme. We agree and reverse.
Section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (1997), specifically limits a trial court’s utilization of income deduction orders to those payments that represent alimony or child support. In entering the income deduction order here, however, the trial court was not directing the payment of alimony or child support. Despite labeling the payments as “permanent non-modifiable spousal support and/or alimony,” the court clearly intended the payments, which represented the wife’s fifty percent share of the husband’s retirement benefits, to effectuate the trial court’s equitable distribution plan. The parties had specifically agreed to, draft the language of the order so as to comport with Ohio law because Ohio, like Florida, limits the use of income deduction orders to those payments that represent alimony or child support.
The wife argues that the husband agreed to this language and therefore should now be estopped from raising this issue on appeal. However, the law is clear that income deduction orders may not be used to achieve equitable distribution of the parties’ marital assets. See § 61.1301, Fla. Stat. (1997); Board of Pension Trustees of City General Employees Pension Plan v. Vizcaino, 635 So. 2d 1012, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Because the order on appeal is in direct contravention of the law, it must be reversed.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
PARKER, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Padot v. Padot, 891 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…. However, the Former Husband also argues, and the Former Wife properly concedes,'that section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (2002), does not permit the use of an income deduction order to effectuate an equitable distribution scheme. See Motil v. Motil, 771 So. 2d 1251, 1251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Rather, section 61.1301 limits the use of income deduction orders to payments for alimony or child support. Id. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the Order re Military Retirement that provides for payment by income de…
-
Bd. OF Trs. OF the Orlando Police Pension Plan v. Langford, 833 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…tribution). It has also been cited with approval by the Second and Third District Courts of Appeal for the general proposition that income deduction orders are not available to achieve an equitable distribution of marital assets. See Motil v. Motil, 771 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (income deduction orders cannot be used to achieve equitable distribution of pension); Silversmith v. Silversmith, 797 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (income deduction order garnishing husband’s wages reversed when used to effectua…
-
Palmateer v. Palmateer, 260 So. 3d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bd. of Pension Trs. of the City Gen. Emps. Pension Plan v. Vizcaino, 635 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)