PATRICIA E. BARDOWELL, APPELLANT,
v.
PHILIP E. BARDOWELL, 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.
Patricia Bardowell appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets and alimony award. The appellate court finds the trial court abused its discretion by assigning only nominal value to the husband's Florida Retirement System (FRS) pension, despite evidence of its substantial present value, and remands for reconsideration of the pension distribution.
The trial court abused its discretion by assigning nominal value to the FRS pension when competent evidence established its present value at approximately $17,438. Although the court could have discounted the value to account for unvested status, assigning it nominal value was not reasonable or equitable. The alimony award did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
[1] A spouse's entitlement to pension or retirement benefits must be considered a marital asset for purposes of equitably distributing marital property.
[2] The most preferable approach for valuing potential future pension rights involves a reduction to present value factoring in contingencies such as vesting, maturity, and m…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 spouse's entitlement to pension or retirement benefits must be considered a marital asset for purposes of equitably distributing marital property.”
Establishes that pension benefits are marital assets subject to equitable distribution in divorce
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatricia and Philip Bardowell were divorcing. At trial, Patricia submitted evidence of an FRS retirement forecast document showing the husband's FRS p…
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 Alimony Award Factors cases and more on FLexlaw
BELANGER, ROBERT E., Associate Judge.
The wife, Patricia Bardowell, timely appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Of the several points the wife has raised on appeal only one — relative to the valuation and award of the husband’s pension — has merit.
“The standard of review of a trial court’s determination of equitable distribution is abuse of discretion.” Kovalchick v. Kovalchick, 841 So. 2d 669, 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Distribution of marital assets and liabilities must be supported by factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence. § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat.
We find that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the wife any portion of the husband’s pension under the Florida Retirement System (“FRS”). “A spouse’s entitlement to pension or retirement benefits must be considered a marital asset for purposes of equitably distributing marital property.” Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265, 270 (Fla.1986). While courts have applied several means for valuing potential future rights, “[t]he most preferable approach involves a reduction to present value factoring in the contingencies of vesting, maturity, and the pensioner’s mortality.” Id. at 269.
However, the court cautioned: “No recitation of formulae, considered in the abstract, could capture the variety of considerations necessary in order to do equity. While reduction to present value may often best ensure an equitable distribution of property, we cannot say 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 current FRS balance “is the present value of your accrued FRS benefit given current years of service.” The FRS documentation provided competent evidence that the present value of the husband’s FRS pension was approximately $17,438 as of December 2004. This is not a nominal value. While the trial court would have been within its discretion to value the pension at an amount lower than $17,438 to account for the fact that the pension was not yet vested, the trial court was not free to ascribe a nominal value to the FRS pension.
The trial court’s decision to assign a nominal value to the FRS pension was not reasonable or equitable.
The wife also argues that the trial court erred in awarding only $1000 per month in permanent alimony. An award of alimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So. 2d 867, 870 (Fla. 4th DCÁ 2003). In crafting an award of alimony, the trial judge should ensure that, viewing the totality of the circumstances, one party is not “shortchanged.” Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1204 (Fla.1980). Here, while the amount of alimony may seem objectively low, we do not find that the court abused its discretion in determining the alimony award.
We have considered the other issues raised and find that they are without merit. The final judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
SHAHOOD, C.J., and STEVENSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
Mondello v. Torres, 47 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…y based on record evidence. Finally, we agree with Wife that the trial 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…
-
Rami Zvida v. Sigalit Zvida, 103 So. 3d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…value of $117,815 for a specific bank account, despite the fact that the value was only $8,284 at the time of trial. “The standard of review of a trial court’s determination of equitable distribution is abuse of discretion.” Bardowell v. Bardowell, 975 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citation omitted). As a general rule, “it is error to include in the equitable distribution scheme assets or sums that have been diminished or depleted during the dissolution proceedings.” Tillman v. Altunay, 44 So. 3d 120…
-
Viscito v. Viscito, 214 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…c alimony. The Former Wife’s second point on cross-appeal challenges any such claim by the Former Husband. Analysis “The standard of review of a trial court’s determination of equitable distribution is abuse of discretion.” Bardowell v. Bardowell, 975 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting Kovalchick v. Kovalchick, 841 So. 2d 669, 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)). The issues addressed by the trial court were not unalloyed issues of law, but rather mixed issues of law and fact. In the present case, many of th…
Previewing 3 of 26 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986)
- Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Kovalchick v. Laraine Kovalchick, 841 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Mullen v. Mullen, 825 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)