Freeman v. Freeman
| Decision Date | 11 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-260,84-260 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 933, 6 Employee Benefits Cas. 1432 Norman E. FREEMAN, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Sandra J. FREEMAN, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Isham W. Adams of Adams & Briggs, Daytona Beach, for appellant/cross-appellee.
James L. Rose of Becks, Becks & Wickersham, Daytona Beach, for appellee/cross-appellant.
Norman Freeman appeals from a judgment of dissolution of marriage contending that the court erred in finding that his disability pension was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution and in awarding his wife Sandra a one-third interest in it. The court made the award as lump sum alimony for Sandra's contributions to the sixteen-year marriage.
It is well established that in this state, a trial judge possesses broad authority upon the dissolution of a marriage to fashion an equitable distribution of the parties' assets based upon the needs and abilities of the partners and a consideration of the role played by each during the course of the marriage. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Hartley v. Hartley, 399 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The remedies available to the trial court to accomplish this include lump sum alimony, permanent periodic alimony, rehabilitative alimony, child support, a special equity and an award of exclusive possession of property. Canakaris.
There are two types of lump sum alimony. The first type relates to support and requires a showing of need and ability to pay. The second type relates to making an equitable division of marital property and requires showing of a justification for such lump sum payment and a financial ability on the part of the paying spouse. Tronconi v. Tronconi, 466 So.2d 203 (Fla.1985); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d at 1201; Lynch v. Lynch, 437 So.2d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Such "justification" may include a wife's "special contributions" to the marriage. Canakaris. In this case, it is this second type we are concerned with and the precise question presented is whether the disability pension 1 is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution or division upon dissolution.
No Florida cases have been cited or found directly on point. It is clear, however, that a retirement pension is properly considered on the question of alimony, i.e., as a source of payment by one spouse for the care and maintenance of the other. See Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 456 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Mills v. Mills, 417 So.2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Bradley v. Bradley, 385 So.2d 101 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Both the Second District in Clarke v. Clarke, 443 So.2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) and the Fourth District in Hurtado v. Hurtado, 407 So.2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), have held that a retirement pension may be a marital asset. While justification may exist for equitable division of a retirement pension, 2 just as such justification would exist if equivalent moneys were placed in an ordinary savings account, does this reasoning necessarily follow in the case of a disability pension? We think not.
A disability pension, like a retirement pension, may be considered in determining support for a spouse or minor child. See, e.g., Williamson v. Williamson, 367 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1979); Baker v. Baker, 419 So.2d 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Campbell v. Campbell, 409 So.2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Hartley v. Hartley, 399 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Alford v. Alford, 364 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). However, we conclude that it is not a marital asset for purposes of equitable distribution. Our conclusion derives not from any analogy between such pension and an educational degree, 3 but rather from the nature of a disability pension. Such a pension is designed to compensate an employee for lost earnings and injuries (including pain and suffering) sustained on the job. See In re Marriage of Jones, 13 Cal.3d 457, 119 Cal.Rptr. 108, 531 P.2d 420 (1975). As such, it is personal to the employee and distinguishable from a retirement pension.
Sandra's reliance on Kruger v. Kruger, 73 N.J. 464, 375 A.2d 659 (1977) and In Re Marriage of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weisfeld v. Weisfeld
...award and the award of exclusive possession of the marital home to the disabled husband. We find conflict with Freeman v. Freeman, 468 So.2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), and have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed, we adopt the analytical approach for determi......
-
Dalessio v. Dalessio
...Weisfeld v. Weisfeld, 513 So.2d 1278, 1280-1282 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987), aff'd, 545 So.2d 1341, 1346 (Fla.1989); Freeman v. Freeman, 468 So.2d 326, 328 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985). We are not inclined to follow the distinctions in these Florida cases, which, in any event, have no application to w......
-
Mylette v. Mylette
...to the employee because it represents compensation for lost earnings as well as for pain and suffering (see also, Freeman v. Freeman, 468 So.2d 326 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985). However, where a disability pension may, in part, represent deferred compensation, it is indistinguishable from a retir......
-
Brinkley v. Brinkley, 0410-86-2
... ... See, e.g., Morrison v. Morrison, 286 Ark. 353, 354, 692 S.W.2d 601, 602 (1985) (disability retirement benefits subject to division); Freeman v. Freeman, 468 So.2d 326, 328 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct.App.1985) (disability pension not subject to equitable distribution); Lookingbill v. Lookingbill, ... ...
-
§ 3.03 Equitable Distribution Systems
...1989); Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265 (Fla. 1986); De Loach v. De Loach, 590 So.2d 956 (Fla. App. 1991); Freeman v. Freeman, 468 So.2d 326 (Fla. App. 1985). Hawaii: Wallace v. Wallace, 677 P.2d 966, 967 n.1 (Haw. App. 1984). Illinois: In re Marriage of Zells, 143 Ill.2d 251, 15......
-
§ 8.03 Disability Benefits
...So.2d 937 (La. App. 1996).[262] See, e.g.: Arizona: Flowers v. Flowers, 118 Ariz. 577, 578 P.2d 1006 (1978). Florida: Freeman v. Freeman, 468 So.2d 326 (Fla. App. 1985). New York: Ward v. Ward, 476 N.Y.S.2d 712 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). [263] See Guy v. Guy, 98 Idaho 205, 560 P.2d 876 (1977). ......