final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion
under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County. Michael A.
Michael T. Webster of Michael T. Webster, P.A., Shalimar, for
W. Brannon of Curtis W. Brannon, PA, Crestview, for Appellee.
former husband challenges a final judgment of dissolution of
marriage. He raises four issues regarding the distribution of
his pension. We find his claim seeking an offset for amounts
he would have received in social security benefits if he had
not participated in this particular type of federal pension
plan does not have merit and affirm without further comment.
Johnson v. Johnson, 726 So.2d 393, 394-96 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1999). The husband also claims that a portion of his
pension attributable to time he worked for the federal civil
service prior to marriage was nonmarital property. Appellant
forfeited any value in this service time when he left civil
service and cashed out his retirement benefits, and he failed
to purchase those years of service when he became reemployed
with the government. Thus, we find no error in this regard.
We affirm without discussion the court's award of a lump
sum to the former wife for her share of appellant's
retirement benefits that she was owed during the pendency of
one issue merits discussion - whether the trial court erred
in finding a portion of appellant's pension that was
attributable to a period of military service prior to the
parties' marriage was marital because those years of
service had no retirement value until they were
"purchased" with marital funds during the marriage
to apply towards appellant's pension. While we affirm as
to this issue, we address it in this opinion because there is
no Florida case directly on point.
an evidentiary hearing the parties presented evidence
pertaining to the amount and nature of appellant's
pension. Prior to the marriage, appellant worked for the
military for 8 years, 2 months, and 25 days. He then worked
for the federal civil service for 5 months and 6 days prior
to the marriage, and he continued to work for the civil
service after the marriage for just over 4 years. Appellant
left that position and cashed out all of the retirement
benefits that he had accrued with the civil service. Shortly
thereafter, he returned to civil service where he worked for
another 24 years, and he retired prior to dissolution.
married, during his second tenure with civil service,
appellant used $9, 866 of marital funds to
"purchase" his years of military service so they
would count towards his civil service pension. Appellant
testified that he and the former wife jointly agreed to pay
the $9, 866, which they paid in installments over an 8-year
period prior to his retirement, because it would be better
for both of them down the road financially. Purchasing those
years did not increase appellant's regular monthly
contribution towards his pension.
conceded that he would not have been eligible to receive any
retirement benefits from the military based on his 8 years of
service. The former wife's accounting expert explained
appellant would have been required to serve in the military
for 20 years to receive military retirement benefits. Thus,
the expert testified those 8 years of service had "no
value" for purposes of retirement until appellant
purchased them to apply towards his civil service retirement.
those years resulted in an increase in appellant's
pension of $908 a month for the rest of his life, according
to the former wife's expert.
trial court found the former wife was entitled to 50% of
appellant's pension, reasoning that because marital funds
were used to purchase the ...