|
|
|
Retirement Benefits Classified as Marital Property
© 2003 National Legal Research Group, Inc.
FLORIDA: Gaetani-Slade v. Slade, 852 So. 2d 343 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
The trial court erred by failing without explanation to consider the husband's retirement benefits as marital property. Where marital funds were used to make mortgage payments on separate property, the court erred by failing to recognize at least some marital interest in the property. Because marital funds were used for improvements, the burden of proving the size of any partial separate interest would be on the owning spouse. The court also erred in classifying inherited antique furniture and jewelry as marital property and in valuing the personal property.
The wife appealed the amended final judgment dissolving her marriage to her husband, alleging multiple errors relating to the distribution of property. The court of appeals found error and reversed the judgment of the trial court.
The wife's first argument alleged error in the trial court's failure to consider the husband's retirement benefits in dividing the parties' marital assets. During the trial, the husband admitted that he had a work-related retirement plan. As retirement benefits are marital assets to the extent they are accrued during the marriage, the wife sought one-half of the value of the plan accumulated during their marriage. The burden of proof is on the spouse who wishes to show that an asset or liability acquired during the marriage is not a marital asset. Reviewing the record, the appellate court found nothing to indicate that the husband complied with the disclosure requirement under the governing Fla. Rule 12.285(d)(10). Moreover, the trial court failed to identify the retirement benefits as a marital or nonmarital asset, to value the retirement benefits, and to account for them in the equitable distribution scheme. The trial court did not make the specific findings necessary to support its apparent determination not to take into account the specific asset consisting of the retirement benefits in making its award of marital assets. This was reversible error which required explanation on remand.
The wife also alleged error in the trial court's finding that there was no marital enhancement in the value of the husband's nonmarital real estate. The real estate was subject to a mortgage obtained during the marriage. Under Fla. Stat. Ann. 61.075(5)(a)(2), enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both, is marital property subject to distribution. Marital funds used to pay down the mortgage and to enhance the value of nonmarital property create a marital interest in the property. Here, the record showed conflicting evidence regarding the wife's contributions of funds to improve the property and pay the mortgage. The wife testified that she contributed her own funds to a joint account, which was used in part to pay the mortgage on the property. She also asserted that the value of the real estate was enhanced by her marital labor and her own nonmarital funds. Yet, the trial court stated in its findings that there was "no evidence presented" from which it could determine whether any appreciation in the property's value had occurred and, if so, whether it was due to the wife's contributions. Once a nonowner spouse establishes that marital funds or labor were used to improve a home that was nonmarital, the owner-spouse has the burden to show which parts are exempt. In light of this conflicting evidence, and because the trial court failed to make the necessary specific findings which would support the distribution of the property, the appellate court remanded the question to the trial court in order to consider additional evidence that would allow it to render such findings.
Finally, the wife alleged error with regard to the trial court's award of tangible personal property. To the extent that the lower court considered the wife's tangible personal property, including nonmarital antique furniture and jewelry inherited from her grandmother, as marital property subject to equitable distribution, it committed error. Fla. Stat. Ann. 61.075(1). Moreover, as there was no competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's valuation of other marital tangible personal property already supposedly in the wife's possession, the lower court abused its discretion and committed reversible error. Because this error affected the entire distribution plan, the court of appeals reversed the entire property distribution scheme.
Go to: Pensions Category
Go to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page
| Featured Services | |
|
| The Research Center: (Divorce Cases of Interest) | Research Home | ||||
Find Case Law, Case Analysis, and Divorce Information...
| |||||
Copyright© 1996-2009. All rights reserved by Divorce Source, Inc.
Comments & Suggestions? or Recommend This Page to a Friend!