Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce

Words are important in a Florida marital settlement agreement. It is important to capture the true intent of the parties in the language used because not doing so may have unintended consequences. This was an issue in the case Bartolotta v. Bartolotta, 2D23-645 (Fla. 2d DCA February 28, 2024).

The parties entered a marital settlement agreement which was ratified by final judgment in 2022. Part of the marital settlement agreement stated

5.4 HUSBAND'S RETIREMENTS. Husband's retirement benefits and entitlements through his 457 plan through his employment with Pinellas County Florida shall remain his sole property free and clear from any claim of Wife. The Florida Retirement System pension/retirement benefits shall be equally distributed between the parties by way of QDRO if necessary and applicable. If a QDRO will not accomplish equal division or the plan administrator will not acknowledge such an Order, then the parties agree to rework this Agreement in order to carry out their intention(s) for distribution of this plan. The Wife's share of the 457 plan has been equitably distributed through other assets.

Twenty years later, the former wife filed a motion to enforce the agreement, alleging the former husband began receiving distributions from his FRS plan, but was not sharing them with the former wife. She argued that based on the plain language of the agreement, she was entitled to half of all benefits that accrued in the pension - even after the divorce. The former husband argued the parties only meant to grant the former wife entitlement to benefits that accrued during the marriage. The trial court reasoned that the language of the agreement had to be interpreted in light of then-statutory language and sided with the former husband. The former wife appealed.

The appellate court reversed, holding “An MSA is construed like any other contract, meaning parties are free to enter into an MSA that may impose obligations or restrictions that would not otherwise be imposed under Florida law.” The court reasoned “[W]e conclude that nothing in provision 5.4, or elsewhere in the MSA, indicates that the parties intended the Former Wife to only receive half of the benefits which accrued during the marriage. To the contrary, the language provides that ‘Florida Retirement System pension/retirement benefits shall be equally distributed between the parties . . . .’ This language clearly and unambiguously provides that the benefits—in their entirety— are to be distributed between the Former Wife and the Former Husband equally. Because this provision obligates the Former Husband to pay the Former Wife benefits accrued during and after the marriage, the terms of the MSA control over sections 61.075(5)(a) and 61.076(1). Therefore, the trial court's reliance upon statutory provisions in construing the MSA's meaning was error.”

Schedule your call with a Miami family law attorney to determine how the law may apply to the facts of your case.