Motil v. Motil, 2D99-3139.
| Decision Date | 08 November 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D99-3139.,2D99-3139. |
| Citation | 771 So.2d 1251 |
| Parties | Patrick John MOTIL, Appellant, v. Victoria Louise MOTIL, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Larry C. Hoffman, Clearwater, for Appellant.
M. Katherine Ramers of Ramers & Stephens, P.A., Dunedin, for Appellee.
Patrick John Motil, the husband, challenges the income deduction order requiring his pension plan in Ohio to make payments to Victoria Louise Motil, the wife, through the Pinellas County Central Depository. He argues that the trial court impermissibly used the income deduction order to effectuate the court's equitable distribution scheme. We agree and reverse.
Section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (1997), specifically limits a trial court's utilization of income deduction orders to those payments that represent alimony or child support. In entering the income deduction order here, however, the trial court was not directing the payment of alimony or child support. Despite labeling the payments as "permanent non-modifiable spousal support and/or alimony," the court clearly intended the payments, which represented the wife's fifty percent share of the husband's retirement benefits, to effectuate the trial court's equitable distribution plan. The parties had specifically agreed to draft the language of the order so as to comport with Ohio law because Ohio, like Florida, limits the use of income deduction orders to those payments that represent alimony or child support.
The wife argues that the husband agreed to this language and therefore should now be estopped from raising this issue on appeal. However, the law is clear that income deduction orders may not be used to achieve equitable distribution of the parties' marital assets. See § 61.1301, Fla. Stat. (1997); Board of Pension Trustees of City General Employees Pension Plan v. Vizcaino, 635 So.2d 1012, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Because the order on appeal is in direct contravention of the law, it must be reversed.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Trustees of Orlando Police Pension Plan v. Langford
...proposition that income deduction orders are not available to achieve an equitable distribution of marital assets. See Motil v. Motil, 771 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (income deduction orders cannot be used to achieve equitable distribution of pension); Silversmith v. Silversmith, 797 So.......
-
Padot v. Padot, No. 2D03-1011
...(2002), does not permit the use of an income deduction order to effectuate an equitable distribution scheme. See Motil v. Motil, 771 So.2d 1251, 1251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Rather, section 61.1301 limits the use of income deduction orders to payments for alimony or child support. Id. According......
-
Palmateer v. Palmateer
...to the trial court's attention but agreed to the entry of the IDO. See §§ 61.1301, 185.25, Fla. Stat. (2017) ; Motil v. Motil, 771 So.2d 1251, 1251-52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing the imposition of an IDO to effect the equitable distribution of the former husband's pension plan despite the......