Mollnow v. Mollnow, 87-1002
| Decision Date | 22 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1002,87-1002 |
| Citation | 530 So.2d 399,13 Fla. L. Weekly 1955 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1955 Dorothy MOLLNOW, Appellant, v. Marvin A. MOLLNOW, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John Kopelousos, of Kopelousos, Head, Smith, Townsend & Metcalf, Orange Park, for appellant.
David B. Lee, Jr., Orange Park, for appellee.
Appellant seeks review of a dissolution order, challenging the division of marital property. Appellee cross-appeals, contesting the award of rehabilitative alimony to appellant. We find that rehabilitative alimony should not have been awarded, and that the court's valuation of the real estate properties does not comport with the evidence which was before the court. We therefore reverse the order as to the award of alimony and the division of marital property.
The parties had been married for over thirty years when the dissolution order was entered. They were both employed at the time of dissolution, with comparable salaries. However, appellee had vested pension rights from his employment, whereas appellant's pension had not yet vested. Appellee was also receiving retirement benefits from his prior service as a military officer. The parties owned a marital home, three other real estate properties, and time share interests in two additional properties, as well as various other assets. Evidence was presented at the dissolution hearing as to the value of the parties' pension rights and their real estate properties.
In distributing the marital assets the court ordered that the parties shall continue to own a rental duplex as tenants in common, and awarded appellant the marital home and the other real estate properties. Each party was awarded various other assets, including items of personal property in accordance with their stipulations. Appellant was also temporarily awarded rehabilitative alimony.
Expert testimony was presented indicating that the present value of appellee's military retirement benefits is nearly half a million dollars. In dividing the parties' assets the court suggested that this valuation was somewhat speculative and "more of a guide ... than ... real probative fact." We recognize that the court possesses a broad range of discretion in determining how retirement benefits should be valued and treated in doing equity between the parties. See Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265 (Fla.1986); Zipperer v. Zipperer, 508 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). But the court should ascribe some value to appellee's military retirement benefits, absent any reasonable basis for discrediting the evidence presented in this case. To the extent that these benefits accrued during the course of the marriage, they should generally be considered as an asset subject to equitable distribution or otherwise available as a source for payment of alimony. See Pastore v. Pastore, 497 So.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeLoach v. DeLoach, 89-383
...otherwise available as a source for payment of alimony to the extent that the benefits accrued during the marriage. Mollnow v. Mollnow, 530 So.2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Zipperer v. Zipperer, 508 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). All dissolution proceedings are in chancery. § 61.011, Fla.Stat......
-
Moon v. Moon, 91-1528
...some two months later. Although the trial court has a broad range of discretion in valuing a retirement account, see Mollnow v. Mollnow, 530 So.2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265 (Fla.1986), the trial court must arrive at an appropriate figure withou......
-
Reyes v. Reyes, 97-3371
...marriage dissolution judgment are intertwined, see, e.g., Ryland v. Ryland, 605 So.2d 138, 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Mollnow v. Mollnow, 530 So.2d 399, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), we reverse as to all such provisions and remand for revisitation by the trial court and for new determinations whic......