Kluessner v. Kluessner

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kluessner v. Kluessner

508 So. 2d 775, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1528, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8964

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 23, 1987

DocketNo. BO-11

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 508 So. 2d 775 (Kluessner v. Kluessner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kluessner v. Kluessner, 508 So. 2d 775, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1528, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8964 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a final judgment dissolving the marriage of William Norman Kluessner and Frances Kay Kluessner. The trial court awarded Mr. Kluessner a special equity in the marital home, finding in pertinent part:

The [hjusband borrowed $13,500.00 from his mother as the down payment on this home, giving to his mother a promissory note. In 1985, the [hjusband paid his mother $14,653.00 representing principal and accrued interest on said promissory note, and the [c]ourt finds that the [h]us-band is entitled to a special equity in the marital home property to the extent of $14,653.00.

The wife challenges this award on the ground that while the original loan may have come from the husband’s mother, the loan was repaid with the funds derived from the husband’s pension plan. Generally, a pension fund may be considered as a marital asset. Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265, 268 (Fla.1986). However, the record reflects that the retirement fund required 15 years to accumulate, while the marriage endured for only four years of that time. Diffenderfer held that retirement funds are marital assets only “[t]o the extent acquired during the marriage.” Diffenderfer at 268. Consequently, we must reverse the judgment below and remand for determination of what pension funds were accumulated before and during the marriage, and for a determination of the parties’ respective interests in the marital home in light thereof. As to the other issue on appeal, we find no error and affirm.

Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

BOOTH, C.J., and ERVIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a final judgment dissolving the marriage of William Norman Kluessner and Frances Kay Kluessner. The trial court awarded Mr. Kluessner a special equity in the marital home, finding in pertinent part:

The [hjusband borrowed $13,500.00 from his mother as the down payment on this home, giving to his mother a promissory note. In 1985, the [hjusband paid his mother $14,653.00 representing principal and accrued interest on said promissory note, and the [c]ourt finds that the [h]us-band is entitled to a special equity in the marital home property to the extent of $14,653.00.

The wife challenges this award on the ground that while the original loan may have come from the husband’s mother, the loan was repaid with the funds derived from the husband’s pension plan. Generally, a pension fund may be considered as a marital asset. Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265, 268 (Fla.1986). However, the record reflects that the retirement fund required 15 years to accumulate, while the marriage endured for only four years of that time. Diffenderfer held that retirement funds are marital assets only “[t]o the extent acquired during the marriage.” Diffenderfer at 268. Consequently, we must reverse the judgment below and remand for determination of what pension funds were accumulated before and during the marriage, and for a determination of the parties’ respective interests in the marital home in light thereof. As to the other issue on appeal, we find no error and affirm.

Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

BOOTH, C.J., and ERVIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 So. 2d 775, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1528, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kluessner-v-kluessner-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack