CYNTHIA MARIE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
ALPHONSO WILLIAMS, SR., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this divorce appeal, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's determination that a husband's Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) benefits accrued after the marriage was dissolved were non-marital property. The court held that under Pullo v. Pullo, such benefits are subject to equitable distribution even when enrollment occurred after the dissolution filing.
The court reversed the trial court's ruling that the DROP benefits are non-marital property. Under Pullo v. Pullo, such benefits are subject to equitable distribution, and the case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the proper allocation of these benefits.
[1] Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) benefits earned during a marriage are marital assets subject to equitable distribution.
[2] Retirement benefits earned during a marriage are marital assets, even if the employee enrolls in a Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) after the marriage has irretr…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Husband became eligible to receive retirement benefits July 1, 2003 and enrolled in the 60 month State Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP). The Wife is not entitled to any of the Husband's DROP benefits. The Husband's DROP benefits are non-marital.”
The trial court's ruling being appealed, which classified DROP benefits as non-marital property.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCynthia Marie Williams and Alphonso Williams, Sr. were married on July 25, 1972 (a 32-year marriage). The husband became eligible for retirement benef…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Nonmarital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
Cynthia Marie Williams, the former wife, appeals one part of the April 2005 final judgment that dissolved her 32-year marriage to the appellee, Alphonso Williams, Sr. Specifically, the former wife challenges the following ruling by the trial court in Paragraph “E” of the final judgment:
The Husband became eligible to receive retirement benefits July 1, 2003 and enrolled in the 60 month State Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP). The Wife is not entitled to any of the Husband’s DROP benefits. The Husband’s DROP benefits are non-marital.
The parties were married on July 25, 1972. Competent, substantial evidence demonstrates that the former husband became eligible to receive retirement benefits on July 1, 2003, and enrolled in the 60-month DROP plan. We have de novo review of the trial court’s ultimate conclusion of law that the former husband’s DROP benefits are a non-marital asset and, therefore, are not subject to equitable distribution.
After the trial court issued the final judgment of dissolution of marriage in the case at bar, we issued Pullo v. Pullo, 926 So. 2d 448, 451-52 (Fla. 1st DCA) (en banc), review dismissed, 933 So. 2d 1154 (Fla.2006), which compels reversal of that part of the final judgment designating the former husband’s DROP benefits as a non-marital asset not subject to equitable distribution. See Nix v. Nix, 930 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Russell v. Russell, 922 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Accordingly, we AFFIRM that portion of the final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage, REVERSE the ruling in Paragraph “E” of the final judgment, and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with Pullo and Nix.
WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Smith, 971 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…We have de novo review over the trial court’s ultimate legal conclusion as to whether an asset or liability is “marital” or “nonmarital,” as defined in the statute. See Buxton v. Buxton, 963 So. 2d 950, 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Williams v. Williams, 935 So. 2d 54, 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). The amended final judgment states merely that the marital home is a nonmari-tal asset that Former Husband is entitled to keep as his own residence, with Former Wife having “no further rights or responsibilities regarding th…
-
Gaffney v. Gaffney, 965 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…la. 4th DCA 2006) (citations omitted). The standard of review of an award of lump sum alimony is abuse of discretion. Id. However, á trial court’s conclusion of law that an asset is a marital asset is subject to de novo review. Williams v. Williams, 935 So. 2d 54, 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). The relevant case law supports Wife’s assertion that the trial court’s characterization of Husband’s pension as a non-marital asset was erroneous. In Davidson v. Davidson, 882 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), this court…
Authorities Cited
- Yarbrough v. State, 926 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Russell v. Russell, 922 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- NIX v. NIX, 930 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)