RONALD M. STORN, FORMER HUSBAND, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
SARAH A. STORN, N/K/A SARAH S. ANTHONY, FORMER WIFE, 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.
A Florida appellate court addressed a marital dissolution case involving asset distribution between spouses married over 30 years. The court reversed part of the trial court's equitable distribution order because the trial court failed to include certain retirement accounts in the distribution scheme and erroneously classified the wife's Red Fox Account as marital property.
The court reversed the trial court's equitable distribution order regarding the omitted retirement accounts and the Red Fox Account classification. The Morgan Stanley pension and Traveler's Annuity are properly marital property and must be distributed on remand. The Red Fox Account, consisting of inherited funds from the wife's mother's trust with no marital fund commingling, is not marital property and should not have been awarded as such.
[1] A trial court errs by failing to include all marital assets in its equitable distribution order.
[2] Retirement accounts and plans contributed to during a marriage are generally considered marital property.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 Morgan Stanley pension is properly marital property, as is a part of the Traveler's Annuity.”
Establishes that the omitted retirement accounts constitute marital property requiring distribution
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 were married for over 30 years and contributed to various retirement accounts and plans through their employers. The trial court's asset d…
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 Separate Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant/Former Husband appeals the trial court’s final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage, distributing their assets, and denying his request for alimony. Ap-pellee/Former Wife cross-appeals, contending that the court erred in its equitable distribution scheme. Because we find merit in some arguments raised, we reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider its equitable distribution order. We affirm all other issues raised by the parties.
The parties were married for over 30 years. During this time they, along with their employers, contributed to various retirement accounts and plans. Appellee properly concedes that the trial court overlooked two of these plans — her pension from Morgan Stanley and a Traveler’s Annuity which she received while working at Burdine’s — from its distribution of assets. The Morgan Stanley pension is properly marital property, as is a part of the Traveler’s Annuity. See § 61.075(5), Fla. Stat. (2003). As the trial court failed to include either of these accounts in its order, we remand for reconsideration and distribution of these accounts.
Additionally, upon reconsidering its equitable distribution scheme, the trial court should not include Appellee’s Red Fox Account, which it previously determined was a marital asset and awarded to Appellee. Although Appellant argues that he presented sufficient evidence showing that the account was a marital asset, he fails to state what evidence he presented. Upon our review of the record, we find no evidence that this was a marital asset, as Appellee testified that the account contains money from her mother’s trust fund and that marital funds had never been commingled with it; therefore, the court erred by considering this account to be marital property. Cf. Crockett v. Crockett, 708 So. 2d 329, 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“Although the wife argues on appeal that the loan was made from her separate account with inherited funds, she did not establish the nonmarital character of the account at trial. The funds lost any arguable separate identity when the wife commingled them with her overtime earnings made during the marriage.”).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
BROWNING, C.J., KAHN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.