JILL WILLMAN, former wife v. STEVEN A. WILLMAN, former husband
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JILL WILLMAN, former wife, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D06-1943 STEVEN A. WILLMAN, former husband, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed December 12, 2006. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County. William F. Stone, Judge. Janis L. Burke, Ft. Walton Beach, for Appellant. Stephen S. Poche', Shalimar, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. In the absence of a valid separation agreement, a married couple s assets remain marital until the date dissolution papers are filed. See ยง 61.075(6), Fla. Stat. (2005); Rao-Nagineni v. Rao, 895 So. 2d 1160, 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ( Section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (2003), provides a bright line rule for setting the date to be used in determining the marital classification of assets and liabilities. If there is no valid separation agreement, the cut-off date is the date of the filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage. (quoting Caruso v. Caruso, 817 So. 2d 498, 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002))). The portion of a military pension that accrues during marriage is a marital asset. See Cunningham v. Cunningham, 623 So. 2d 1243, 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). In the present case, the trial judge used November 1, 2002, as the date on which the husband s pension plan ceased being a marital asset. This was error. As the parties did not have a separation agreement, the husband s pension plan continued as a marital asset until he filed for divorce on August 10, 2004. Accordingly, we reverse on this issue and remand to the trial court to amend the portion of the final judgment dealing with the wife s coverture share of the husband s military retirement pay. The final judgment is affirmed in all other respects. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part. BROWNING, C.J., KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
