Diffenderfer Revisited: Is the Double-dipping Quagmire Still Alive?

In 2005, New York City’s transportation system was shut down due to a strike by transit workers who were trying to protect their retirement benefits. This shows how important these benefits are to workers. In a court case called Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, there was confusion about how retirement benefits should be divided in a divorce. There are three main types of retirement plans: defined contribution plans (like a savings account), defined benefit plans (guaranteed benefits), and hybrid plans (a mix of the two). It’s important for people to understand these plans and how they might be affected in a divorce. Defined Benefit Plans promise a specific retirement benefit to participants based on a formula using years of service, retirement date, and salary. Contributions are made on an aggregated basis, not for individual participants.
Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) are trusts created for the benefit of an individual or their beneficiaries and are similar to defined contribution plan accounts.
In 1986, the Florida Supreme Court held that retirement benefits should be considered a marital asset for equitable distribution in a divorce. There was a problem with a legal case being distributed in Florida. The official version said one thing, but the electronic version said something else. This mistake led to a bunch of cases where retirement benefits were divided and then couldn’t be used to figure out support payments. It didn’t matter what kind of retirement plan it was or what stage the case was in. Once the benefits were divided, they couldn’t be used to decide support. In Florida, a man named Jerome Rogers got his pension distributed to him in a divorce, but later wanted to retire and stop paying alimony. The court said he couldn’t do that because his retirement was unreasonable, even though his pension couldn’t be counted as income for alimony. However, the court did say that his pension could be used to pay back any missed alimony payments. This case shows that it’s not always clear-cut when it comes to deciding if retirement benefits should be considered in changing alimony payments. In the case Lauro v. Lauro, the court decided that the wife should receive a portion of her husband’s pension as part of the divorce settlement. In another similar case, Acker v. Acker, the court had to decide if the husband should still pay alimony to his ex-wife after he retired. This showed a change in how courts were handling pension and alimony in divorce cases. In a court case, the judge decided that pension benefits should be considered as property in a divorce, not just as a source of support. The judge also said that when it comes to alimony, the financial resources of both parties should be taken into account, including any assets they received during the divorce. However, one judge disagreed and said that previous cases prohibited considering retirement benefits in property distribution and support obligations. But the majority of the court disagreed, saying that the law now requires pension benefits to be treated as property in a divorce. The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between different decisions about whether pension benefits can be considered when determining alimony. The court said that pension benefits can be considered in determining alimony. A judge cannot treat pension benefits as both property and income. The court also said that concerns about this issue should be dealt with by the legislature, not the courts. The issue of double-dipping in pension benefits in divorce cases is still not resolved, even after a recent Florida Supreme Court case. The court said that pension benefits can be considered when determining alimony, but it didn’t give clear guidelines on how to do that. This has created confusion for lawyers and courts. So, the quagmire of double-dipping is still a problem. When it comes to pensions in Florida, things can get confusing. When a person gets a divorce, the value of their pension is calculated based on the assumption that they will wait until retirement age to start receiving the benefits. But the actual value at the time of retirement might be different. Some lawyers still think that considering retirement benefits when deciding alimony is like double-dipping, but there are flaws in that argument. Other assets, like rental property, are valued based on future cash flow, and that income is considered when determining support. In fact, Florida law requires pension income to be included when calculating child support. It’s not a good idea to make strict rules that would stop judges from considering retirement benefits when deciding alimony. Each case is different, and judges need the flexibility to make fair decisions based on the specific situation. When deciding alimony, it’s important to look at all the assets that were split in the divorce, and to consider whether they are easy to turn into cash or not. The law already includes factors for judges to look at when deciding alimony, and those factors should be used in a flexible and creative way. Overall, it’s better to use the existing framework to make fair decisions about alimony. This article talks about how courts sometimes make mistakes when dividing retirement benefits in a divorce. It’s important to understand the difference between defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans. The article is written by a lawyer who specializes in family law.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/diffenderfer-revisited-is-the-double-dipping-quagmire-still-alive/