Bolden v. Bolden, 011019 FLCA1, 1D18-0576

Docket Nº:1D18-0576
Opinion Judge:WOLF, J. JUDGE
Party Name:Suzanne M. Bolden, Appellant, v. Donzaleigh Bolden, Appellee.
Attorney:Corrine A. Bylund, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Otto D. Rafuse of Law Office of Otto D. Rafuse, LLC, Jacksonville, for Appellee.
Judge Panel:Lewis and Rowe, JJ., concur.
Case Date:January 10, 2019
Court:Florida Court of Appeals, First District
 
FREE EXCERPT

Suzanne M. Bolden, Appellant,

v.

Donzaleigh Bolden, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0576

Florida Court of Appeals, First District

January 10, 2019

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. W. Gregg McCaulie, Judge.

Corrine A. Bylund, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Otto D. Rafuse of Law Office of Otto D. Rafuse, LLC, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

WOLF, J. JUDGE

Appellant, the former wife, challenges a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. She raises four issues on appeal. We find the trial court erred in calculating the marital portion of retirement pay for the purposes of equitable distribution. We affirm as to the other issues without comment.

Entitlement to Retirement Pay

Appellant argues the trial court erred when it incorrectly calculated the amount of appellee's retirement pay appellant was entitled to receive as part of the equitable distribution of property. We agree.

To determine the amount of a retirement fund a party has accumulated during a marriage, a trial court must "'creat[e] a fraction where the numerator is the amount of time the employee was married while participating in the plan, and the denominator is the total time the employee has in the plan.' The trial court then multiplies the plan's present value by the coverture fraction to calculate the total present value of the retirement fund which accrued during the marriage." Fritz v. Fritz, 161 So.3d 425, 428-29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (quoting Trant v. Trant, 545 So.2d 428, 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)).

Here, the trial court's order is internally inconsistent in several regards, which requires reversal for a recalculation of the portion of the retirement fund that may be equitably distributed. First, the trial court found that appellee's retirement base pay was $4, 378 per month and that appellee had 24 years and 7 months of service. In a separate paragraph, the trial court also found that appellee's retirement base pay was $4, 078 per month and he had 24.5 years of service. The trial court utilized the $4, 078 figure to calculate...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP