Weber v. Weber

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Weber v. Weber

783 So. 2d 333, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5246, 2001 WL 395298

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 20, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-2028

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 783 So. 2d 333 (Weber v. Weber) 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

Weber v. Weber, 783 So. 2d 333, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5246, 2001 WL 395298 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the trial court erred in reserving jurisdiction to enter a qualified domestic relations order to effect a distribution of a portion of the husband’s pension. The husband is employed as a city fireman and his pension is one that is not subject to a qualified domestic relations order in order to effect an equitable distribution. See Board of Pension Trs. of City Gen. Employees Pension Plan v. Vizcaino, 635 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). On remand, the court may fashion an alternative method of distribution to ensure that the wife receives her portion of the applicable retirement benefits. We reject the arguments made in the cross appeal in this case and find no other error in the final judgment.

Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

BENTON, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the trial court erred in reserving jurisdiction to enter a qualified domestic relations order to effect a distribution of a portion of the husband’s pension. The husband is employed as a city fireman and his pension is one that is not subject to a qualified domestic relations order in order to effect an equitable distribution. See Board of Pension Trs. of City Gen. Employees Pension Plan v. Vizcaino, 635 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). On remand, the court may fashion an alternative method of distribution to ensure that the wife receives her portion of the applicable retirement benefits. We reject the arguments made in the cross appeal in this case and find no other error in the final judgment.

Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

BENTON, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

783 So. 2d 333, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5246, 2001 WL 395298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weber-v-weber-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack