TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Trant v. Trant

Richard TRANT v. Janice TRANT

Trant v. Trant, 522 So. 2d 72 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 24, 1988
Docket
No. 87-1412
Judges
Campbell, Scheb, Threadgill
Citations
522 So. 2d 7213 Fla. L. Weekly 5351988 Fla. App. LEXIS 6711988 WL 13728

Opinion of the Court — Threadgill

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

THREADGILL, Judge.

Appellant, husband, appeals a final judgment of dissolution challenging the award to appellee, wife, of a forty-five percent share of husband’s pension as equitable distribution of assets and $386 per month permanent alimony.

The final judgment provided as follows:

3. The Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner the sum of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX ($386.00) DOLLARS per month as permanent, periodic alimony terminable upon the death or remarriage of the Wife. This alimony shall continue until such time that Respondent retires from the Florida Highway Patrol and begins to receive his pension funds.

4. The Petitioner is awarded a forty-five (45%) percent share of Respondent’s pension from the Florida Highway Patrol as equitable distribution of assets. The Petitioner is entitled to receive, and has a presently vested ownership interest in, 45% of any mo *73 nies paid to Respondent by way of the pension fund, either by monthly retirement benefits, by lump sum, or under any option exercised by the Respondent.

We affirm the final judgment. However, we find that the wife is not entitled to the increased value of the pension fund after the date of dissolution. Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265 (Fla.1986) and Howerton v. Howerton, 491 So.2d 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). It is unclear from the judgment whether the forty-five (45%) percent is to be calculated at the time the benefits are paid rather than based on present value. We therefore remand this cause for valuation of the pension plan and the entry of an amended final judgment reflecting the wife’s monetary entitlement as of the date the judgment was entered.

Affirmed in part, remanded in part.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1989: 11990: 11996: 119892026peak 1989 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Trant v. Trant545 So. 2d 428 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
  2. Bain v. Bain553 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
  3. Boyett v. Boyett683 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Most recent

  1. Boyett v. Boyett683 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
  2. Bain v. Bain553 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
  3. Trant v. Trant545 So. 2d 428 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986) 176
Howerton v. Howerton, 491 So. 2d 614 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986) 21

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list