Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
In the case Suess v. Suess, 2D18-2521 (Fla. 2d DCA December 20, 2019), we see that words matter in contracts. A dispute arose as to enforcement of the parties’ Florida marital settlement agreement regarding the former husband’s retirement accounts and the former wife’s entitlement to them. Interestingly, the enforcement of the agreement turned on the court’s interpretation of the word “all”.
When the parties entered their marital settlement agreement, neither was represented by a lawyer. Therefore, they created their own contract. The relevant parts of the agreement stated “Wife will receive 50% of all retirement benefits from husband (City of Ocala, Ocala Police, and State of Florida)” and “Additionally, she will remain the death beneficiary on each of these retirement accounts.” Under Florida law, a spouse is generally entitled to 50% of the marital portion of a retirement account. The marital portion is defined as that which accrued from the date of marriage until the date of filing for divorce. However, the parties are free to agree to a different apportionment in their marital settlement agreement.
Some time later, the former wife filed a motion to enforce the agreement and to have a qualified domestic relations order entered so that she could receive her share of the former husband’s retirement accounts as agreed. The former husband argued the former wife was only entitled to the marital portion of the retirement accounts. The former wife argued that based on the clear and unambiguous language of the parties’ agreement, she was entitled to 50% of the all of the account, even that which accrued before the marriage and after divorce. The former husband also argued he was unable to maintain the former wife as a beneficiary on his retirement accounts since the regulations only allowed current spouses to be beneficiaries. The trial court sided with the former husband on both points, and the former wife appealed.
The appellate court reversed, holding “[W]e find that the subject provision of the MSA is clear and unambiguous. While it may seem axiomatic, the term ‘all’ means ‘the whole amount, quantity, or extent of.’ Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/all (last visited December 5, 2019). This term, used in conjunction with ‘retirement benefits of husband,’ is clear and intelligible and means just that: ‘all retirement benefits of husband.’ There is no language, express or otherwise, in the MSA indicating that the parties intended for the Former Wife to only receive fifty percent of the Former Husband's retirement benefits that accrued during the marriage.”
As to the beneficiary issue, the appellate court held “Contrary to the trial court's finding, the Act and its corresponding rules expressly allow for someone other than the member's current spouse to be named the beneficiary of the member's retirement account. Moreover, such designations, including those designations of former spouses as beneficiaries, have been upheld even to the preclusion of a member's current spouse. [. . .] The trial court improperly considered the Former Husband's current marital status in deciding the beneficiary issue and went so far as to authorize the Former Husband's designation of his current spouse as ‘survivor beneficiary’ of the FRS Pension. The Former Husband's current marital status was a fact that occurred well after the parties entered into the MSA and was clearly irrelevant to the trial court's interpretation of the MSA.”
It is likely that what the former husband spent on post-judgment and appellate fees plus the amount in his retirement account he ended up having to pay to his former wife went well beyond what he might have paid a lawyer to assist him in drafting his marital settlement agreement originally. If the former husband intended to only pay the marital portion of the account to the former wife, the appropriate wording should have been used in the agreement. This is why sometimes it actually costs you more to NOT hire a lawyer when you are dealing with what can be complex issues in a divorce case. Schedule a consultation with a Miami divorce lawyer to learn more.