JAMES FRANCIS MULLEN, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHELLE BEVEN MULLEN, 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 a dissolution of marriage case, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's valuation of the wife's 401(k)/IRA plan, finding the trial court misinterpreted her testimony about the plan's value and failed to account for tax consequences of liquidation.
The trial court must reverse and reconsider the plan's valuation because it misinterpreted the wife's testimony—the $14,000 value applied in 1995, not in 1990 when the marriage began—and must account for tax and penalty consequences of liquidation when determining the plan's actual value.
[1] A trial court must base property valuations on competent, substantial evidence, not mere estimation.
[2] A trial court's valuation of a retirement account is reversible error if not supported by competent, substantial evidence.
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 trial court "must arrive at an appropriate figure without merely resorting to an estimation."”
Establishes the standard that retirement account valuations must be supported by competent evidence, not guesswork
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties married in 1990. The wife testified the plan had a value of $4,132 in 1990 when they married, but had paperwork showing it was $14,000 in …
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 Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, J.
In this dissolution of marriage case, we reverse one aspect of the final judgment. In distributing marital property, the trial court sought to fix the value of the wife’s 401(k)/IRA plan.1 The wife testified that the plan had a value of $4,132 in 1990 when the parties married. She was also asked if she had any documents showing the value when she married and she responded:
“[o]n the date we were married, no, because I still worked for the company up until 1995, and that’s when it was actually put in an IRA and rolled over, but I do have the paperwork from them showing that it was only 14,000 at that time.”
In the final judgment, the court found that “the only evidence before the Court concerning the value of the Wife’s IRA prior to the marriage is unrebutted and the only-value presented in evidence was $14,000. The marital portion of the IRA is therefore, $13,448.”
Though a trial court has broad discretion in valuing a retirement account, the trial court “must arrive at an appropriate figure without merely resorting to an estimation.” Moon v. Moon, 594 So. 2d 819, 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Property valuation which is not supported by competent, substantial evidence cannot stand. Noone v. Noone, 727 So. 2d 972, 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). It is apparent that the trial court misunderstood her testimony. She testified that the value was $14,000 in 1995, not that it was $14,000 when they were married in 1990. We therefore reverse for the trial court to correct its finding as to the value of the plan.
At the same time, the wife also testified that the plan was liquidated before the filing of the divorce. She testified that there is a tax and a penalty on such a liquidation. It will therefore be necessary for the court also to ascertain the tax consequences in arriving at the value of the plan. See Nicewonder v. Nicewonder, 602 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (“A trial court is required to consider the consequences of income tax laws on the distribution of marital assets and alimony ordered by it, and failure to do so is ordinarily reversible error.”); Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (tax consequences should have been considered).
In all other respects the final judgment is affirmed.
WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . See 61.075(6), Fla. Stat. (2001) ("the cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities to be identified or classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, such other date as may be expressly established by such agreement, or the date of the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage.”). There was no agreement between the parties fixing any earlier date.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mondello v. Torres, 47 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…rial court erred in failing to value Husband’s insurance policy. “Property valuation which is not supported by competent, substantial evidence cannot stand.” Bardowell v. Bardowell, 975 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting Mullen v. Mullen, 825 So. 2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)). Wife argues that the trial court erred in failing to render factual findings on this asset, and in designating a $0 value for the policy in light of the unchallenged evidence as to the $10,000 value of the policy. Husban…
-
Bardowell v. Bardowell, 975 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…it would do so in every case.” Id. Here, the trial court’s conclusion that the FRS pension was of “nominal” value was clearly erroneous. “Property valuation which is not supported by competent, substantial evidence cannot stand.” Mullen v. Mullen, 825 So. 2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). At trial, the wife submitted evidence of a “retirement forecast” document prepared by the FRS, which stated that, as of December 2004, the husband’s current FRS balance was worth $17,438. The document noted that the curre…
-
Eduardo A. Garcia, M.D. v. Garcia, 25 So. 3d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…practice at $562,665. The difference between the experts’ valuations is attributable to their handling of the practice’s accounts receivable. A trial court’s property valuation must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. Mullen v. Mullen, 825 So. 2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Cummings v. Cummings, 719 So. 2d 948, 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Here, the trial court found that the net asset value methodology for valuing closely held businesses, as proposed in Bossemian, was the most reasonable method…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Moon v. Moon, 594 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Ulysses Gregg v. State, 727 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Nicewonder v. Arstine Nicewonder, 602 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)