Opinion
Case No. 4D01-2115.
Opinion filed December 11, 2002.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 96-338-FS.
Russell S. Bohn of Caruso, Burlington, Bohn Compiani, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jane Kreusler-Walsh and Rebecca J. Mercier of Jane Kreusler-Walsh, P.A., West Palm Beach, and W. Jay Hunston, Jr. of Boose, Casey, Ciklin, Lubitz, Martens, McBane O'Connell, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an amended qualified domestic relations order (Amended QDRO). We reverse the order and remand with instructions for the trial court to clarify what appear to be inconsistencies within the order.
We have previously approved the Hoffmans' final judgment of dissolution of marriage. See Hoffman v. Hoffman, 793 So.2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We now reverse and remand the Second Amended QDRO because of apparent inconsistencies within the order and because it gives the Former Wife an impermissible post-judgment interest in the Former Husband's assets.
The Second Amended QDRO addressed the distribution of the Former Husband's IRA account. The Second Amended QDRO gave the Former Wife in one part, "One Hundred Ninety Three Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-five Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents ($193,255.75), which constitutes 30.22% of the existing account balance as of January 11, 2000, such amounts to be increased by the proportionate share of any account gains, interest, dividends and other earnings and reduced by the proportionate share of any account losses from January 11, 2000, through the date of distribution." Later, the order stated, "The Plan Administrator shall determine the total amount awarded to the Alternate Payee pursuant to paragraph 3.a. by allocating to her 30.22% of each asset in the account as of the close of business on the day prior to the date of distribution." The order went on to state that the Plan Administrator shall roll over the said portion into a separate IRA account established for the Former Wife's benefit.
The second quoted portion of the order appears to give the Wife an impermissible post-judgment interest in the Husband's IRA earnings for the period after the dissolution was entered and before distribution. See DeSantis v. DeSantis, 714 So.2d 637, 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Moreover, the two quoted portions of the QDRO appear to be inconsistent.
First, 30.22% of the account balance and 30.22% of each asset are not likely to be an equal amount. Second, the first quoted portion purports to grant 30.22% of the existing account balance as of January 11, 2000, while the second portion instructed the Plan Administrator to give the Former Wife 30.22% of each asset in the account as of the business day prior to distribution.
Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to address what appear to be inconsistent amounts in the QDRO. We are unable to address whether the portion is consistent with the final dissolution allotment because the inconsistencies in the QDRO make it unclear what proportion the trial court intended to distribute to the Former Wife.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
POLEN, C.J., GUNTHER and MAY, JJ., concur.