Cameron v. CameronCameron v. Cameron
Michael A. Morris of Myrick & Davis, P.A., Pensacola, for appellee.
ZEHMER, Judge.
Appellant Robert Cameron, the former husband, and cross-appellant Marsha Cameron, the former wife, bring up for review the final judgment dissolving their mаrriage and the order entered on their motions for rehearing. We find error in the trial court‘s determination regarding the funds in the former husband‘s pension plans; the remaining points are affirmed without discussion.
The parties were married for twelve years, during which time the former husband worked as an orthopedic surgeon and the former wife raised the parties’ two children. At the time of the marriage, the former husband already had an established retirement program to which he had contributed approximately $75,000. During the marriage, these retirement funds increased an additional $448,000. In the final judgment of dissolution, the trial court found the during-marriage appreciation of these retirement funds to be mаrital property and awarded the former wife a special equity in the amount of $224,000, which it found wаs equal to one-half of the during-marriage appreciation of the retirement funds. The trial court ordered the former husband to pay this amount to the former wife “as and for a lump sum of alimоny ... at the rate of $1,500.00 per month commencing August 1, 1989.” On motion for rehearing, the former wife argued that thе $224,000 lump sum alimony award should bear interest until such time as full payment of the debt is satisfied. In his motion for rehеaring, the former husband asserted that any funds paid to the former wife for her interest in the pension рlan should be based upon the present value of the plan, an amount which is considerably less than one-half of the plan‘s during marriage appreciation. In response to these arguments, the trial court ruled in its order on motions for rehearing that:
The Wife‘s motion for interest on the lumр sum alimony payments is denied by reason of the Court‘s finding that the present market value of the assigned interest in the Pension and Profit Sharing Plan is equal to $224,000.00 less the time value of the money resulting from the pеriodic payments ordered by the Court. However, the Court determines and orders that the Husband shall nоt have any reduction in payment of the lump sum alimony by reason of early payment.
(R. 154).
On appeal, both parties reassert their respective contentions that the trial court errеd with regard to this award. The former wife argues that the trial court clearly found the present value of her special equity in the pension plan to equal $224,000, and that denial of interest on that аmount was error. The former husband responds that the trial court took into account the time vаlue of the periodic payments and
We cannot aсcept the former wife‘s interpretation of the order on rehearing to the effect that the court found the present value of her special equity to be $224,000. Obviously, the amount of $224,000 is qualifiеd by the rest of the sentence reading “less the time value of the money resulting from the periodic payments ordered by the Court.” What is not obvious from this finding of the trial court, however, is the exact amount it determined to constitute the present value of the special equity and whether part of the $224,000 award constituted interest. Furthermore, it appears that the trial court failed to consider and makе appropriate provision for the tax consequences of this award to eaсh of the parties.
Because the pension fund cannot be drawn until sometime in the future, the court must make a clear determination of the present value of the former wife‘s interest in thosе funds. Then, the court may enter a qualified domestic relations order pursuant to
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.
JOANOS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.