JOHN TRAVIS
v.
DEBORAH TRAVIS
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 trial court may clarify what is implicit in a final judgment by distributing property consistent with broad language in that judgment, but once an appeal is pending, the trial court's jurisdiction is limited to temporary orders that explicitly state they are effective only until the appellate court decides the appeal.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to determine property rights after a final judgment of dissolution of marriage unless the final judgment reserves jurisdiction for a spec…
[2] A trial court may clarify what is implicit in a final judgment and enforce the judgment, but cannot modify it by awarding new benefits not expressly included or encompass…
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“At the time a judgment of dissolution of marriage becomes final, the parties' property rights, if determined by the judgment are fixed as a matter of law.”
Establishes that once a final judgment is rendered, property rights are fixed unless the judgment expressly reserves jurisdiction or the order merely clarifies what is implicit in the judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter thirty-two years of marriage, Deborah Travis filed for dissolution and the trial court distributed marital retirement assets including accounts …
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 Jurisdiction To Modify Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
JOHN TRAVIS,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D20-2617 LT Case No. 2013-DR-001364
DEBORAH TRAVIS,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed July1, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Jessica J. Recksiedler, Judge. Nicholas A. Shannin and Carol B. Shannin, of Shannin Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Moses Robert Dewitt, of Dewitt Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee. EDWARDS, J.
Appellant, John Travis (“Former Husband”), appeals the order denying his motion for rehearing and reconsideration regarding several Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) rendered by the trial court regarding the distribution of certain retirement or pension funds and the three QDROs issued after he filed his first notice of appeal. We affirm in part but vacate the February 2021 QDROs and remand for further proceedings. After over thirty years of marriage to Former Husband, Appellee, Deborah Travis (“Former Wife”), filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. In the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the trial court equitably distributed the marital assets, including “retirement assets (401k) valued at in excess of $625,000.00 as well as pension benefits” and specifically distributed two retirement plans titled “Lockheed Martin Salaried Savings” (“Lockheed Savings Plan”) and the “GE Retirement Savings” (“GE Savings Plan”). All of these accounts were generated by Former Husband’s employment while Former Wife was a stay-at-home mother. Two years later, Former Husband moved for entry of two QDROs for the GE Savings Plan and the Lockheed Savings Plan. After holding a hearing where only these two QDROs were discussed, the lower court entered a QDRO for the GE Savings Plan and a QDRO for the Lockheed Savings Plan. Despite the Lockheed Martin Corporation Salaried Employee Retirement Program (“Lockheed Retirement Program”) not being addressed in Former Husband’s motion nor discussed during the hearing, the trial court also entered a QDRO for the Lockheed Retirement Program. Additionally, the trial court also entered an Addendum to the final judgment to effectuate the QDROs.
Former Husband filed a motion for rehearing or reconsideration, arguing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter the QDRO discussing the Lockheed Retirement Program because it was a new benefit not awarded in the final judgment. The trial court denied his motion and Former Husband appealed. In February 2021, after Former Husband filed his notice of appeal, the trial court entered three QDROs. One QDRO was an amended version of the GE Savings Plan, with no substantive changes. The other two QDROs split the two portions of the Lockheed Retirement Program, which were distributed together in the original QDRO.1 Former Husband then filed an amended notice of appeal to include the three QDROs entered.
Jurisdiction re: Lockheed Retirement Program QDRO and Addendum At the time a judgment of dissolution of marriage becomes final, the parties’ property rights, if determined by the judgment are fixed as a matter of law. Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). A court may clarify what is implicit in a final judgment, and enforce the judgment. But after a final judgment is rendered, a trial court lacks jurisdiction under chapter 61 to
Three Additional QDROs
“Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(c)(1) states that in a family law case the trial court retains jurisdiction to enter orders awarding alimony or ‘other awards necessary to protect the welfare and rights of any party pending appeal.’” McPherson v. McPherson, 775 So. 2d 973, 973–74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). “This is a limited jurisdiction and is calculated to protect the party seeking or needing relief until the appellate court decides the issue on appeal.” Campbell v. Campbell, 436 So. 2d 374, 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (emphasis in original).
None of the QDROs entered after Former Husband filed his notice of appeal contained language stating that the QDROs were temporary and would only affect the parties until this Court decided this appeal. We hold that the trial court exceeded its limited jurisdiction granted by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(c)(1) when entering these QDROs while this appeal was pending. We vacate the three additional February 2021 QDROs and remand for further proceedings.
Accordingly, we affirm the Lockheed Retirement Program QDRO and accompanying Addendum and vacate the February 2021 QDROs and remand for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATE February 2021 QDROs; and REMANDED with instructions. LAMBERT, C.J. and SASSO, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Encarnacion v. Encarnacion, 877 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Flanders v. Flanders, 516 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Haas v. Haas, 421 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- McPHERSON v. McPHERSON, 775 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Semko v. Semko, 537 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Campbell v. Chalermsri V. Campbell, 436 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)