Wife Appeals Final Judgment of Dissolution in Attempt to Recover Proceeds from Husband’s Pension
All assets that are considered to be part of the marital estate are subject to equitable distribution under Florida law. This includes pension plans, retirement accounts, and other assets that accrued during the marriage. In cases where the retirement accounts predate the marriage, the value accrued during the marriage is considered a part of the marital estate while the value predating the marriage is considered the personal property of the spouse who owns the retirement account.
In one case, Bardowell v. Bardowell, an appeals court was asked to consider whether the trial court abused its discretion when considering the former husband’s pension plan as his own personal property. The wife appealed the decision and, in this case, the appeals court sided with the wife.
The standard for determining whether or not an appeal has merit in a case like this is whether or not the trial court abused its discretion. In this case, the trial court determined that no part of the husband’s pension plan was subject to equitable distribution under Florida’s rules. The appeals court determined that the trial court abused its discretion when it separated the pension plan from the marital estate. In other words, the wife should have been entitled to proceeds from the pension plan when the estate was equitably divided.
Understanding the appeal
The appeals court found 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). The court relied on a decision from another case, Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer which ruled that “a spouse’s entitlement to pension or retirement benefits must be considered a marital asset for purposes of equitably distributing marital property.”
Here, there were issues regarding the proper valuation of the pension plan. The trial court determined that the FRS pension was of “nominal” value. However, the appeals court determined that this was “clearly erroneous.” The court must consider competent substantial evidence when determining the value of an asset.
During the trial, the wife presented evidence of a “retirement forecast” document prepared by FRS that stated that, as of the time of the trial, the husband’s current FRS balance was worth $17,438. The documentation provided competent evidence concerning the value of the retirement account, but the court neglected to consider it. Instead, it deemed that the value of the retirement account was “nominal” and awarded the wife no portion of it. The appeals court ruled that the trial court’s decision to assign a nominal value to the pension was not reasonable or equitable.
Talk to a Tampa, FL Divorce Lawyer Today
Westchase Law, P.A. represents the interests of Tampa, Florida residents in divorce proceedings. You will need experienced representation as you untangle your assets from your former spouse. Call our Tampa family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next moves right away.
Source:
casetext.com/case/bardowell-v-bardowell?
