RAYMOND JOSEPH VONNOH, FORMER HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
DEBORAH PEACOCK VONNOH, FORMER WIFE, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in requiring a specific annuity election and in its provision for dividing extracurricular activity costs in the parenting plan, as these were not supported by the record.
[1] A trial court's judgment requiring a specific annuity election related to a retirement income plan must be supported by record evidence establishing the availability and…
[2] A trial court errs by ordering a specific annuity election without record support for the availability and terms of that option.
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 intelligenceThe husband appealed a final judgment dissolving his marriage, challenging provisions related to his retirement income plan and the parenting plan's 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 Parenting Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes before us on the husband’s appeal from the final judgment entered by the trial court dissolving the marriage of the parties and establishing a parenting plan. We reverse and remand as to two issues raised by the husband as discussed below. We affirm the judgment in all other respects without comment.
First, the judgment below erred by requiring a specific annuity election related to the husband’s retirement income plan in the absence of record support. See, e.g., Steadman v. Steadman, 645 So.2d 581, 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (requiring the scheme of distribution devised by the trial court to be supported by competent substantial evidence). Specifically, the judgment required that the parties “shall cooperate to elect the 50% Joint and Survivor Annuity with the Wife named as beneficiary.” However, evidence does not exist in the record that provides a foundation for requiring this specific annuity election — neither confirming whether this option has been made available to the par*956ties, nor specifying the terms under which it is available to them. For this reason, we reverse this aspect of the final judgment.
Second, the husband challenges and the wife concedes error as to the parenting plan’s provision for “Extra-curricular Activities.” The Plan states that “[t]he cost of extra-curricular activities shall be divided proportionally to the parties’ respective incomes.” But we can find no evidence supporting a division of extracurricular costs based on the parties’ respective incomes. Rather, the evidence adduced at the hearing supports a different, conflicting provision found in the final judgment stating that the parties will “equally share the cost” of current and future extra-curricular activities. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the parenting plan for revision consistent with the evidence and terms of the final judgment.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BENTON, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- U-Haul OF S. Fla. & Crawford & Co. v. March, 645 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Steadman v. Steadman, 645 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)