Case Name: Rosalie B. BUJARSKI, Appellant, v. Marcel J. BUJARSKI, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-07-28
Citations: 530 So. 2d 953
Docket Number: No. 86-1958
Parties: Rosalie B. BUJARSKI, Appellant, v. Marcel J. BUJARSKI, Appellee.
Judges: DAUKSCH, ORFINGER, COBB and DANIEL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 530
Pages: 953–956

Head Matter:
Rosalie B. BUJARSKI, Appellant, v. Marcel J. BUJARSKI, Appellee.
No. 86-1958.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
July 28, 1988.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 1988.
William H. Morrison, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for appellant.
Franklin T. Walden of Massey, Alper & Walden, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
COWART, Judge.
This case involves consideration of pension benefits in a dissolution of marriage case. A majority of the judges of this district court of appeal ordered this case to be determined en banc pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.331(a) because the case was considered of exceptional importance and an en banc hearing was necessary to maintain uniformity in the court's decisions.
At the time of dissolution, the husband was retired, going to college and receiving $31,000 annual military pension benefit income. The wife, with a master's degree, earned $43,100 annually with pension benefits to vest in four years. The trial court awarded the wife permanent periodic alimony of $200 per month. The wife appeals, arguing that under Diffenderfer v. Diffen-derfer, 491 So.2d 265 (Fla.1986), the trial court erred in considering the husband's military income as a source of payment of permanent periodic alimony rather than awarding the wife one-half of the husband's retirement pension as an equitable distribution of the marital assets. In Dif- fenderfer, the Florida Supreme Court only rejected the First District's holding that a pension could not be considered marital property subject to equitable distribution but the supreme court affirmed the district court's holding that such benefits could be considered as a source of payment of permanent periodic alimony. Under Diffen-derfer, the trial judge may, in his discretion, treat a pension benefit as a marital asset and make an equitable distribution of it or consider it as a source of payment of permanent periodic alimony, but not both. Here the trial court considered the husband's military pension as a source of payment of permanent periodic alimony. Applying the "reasonableness" standard of review enunciated in Canakaris v. Cana-karis, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), to the facts in this case, we find the trial court's treatment of the retirement benefits within its range of discretion and affirm. See Bogará v. Bogard, 490 So.2d 43 (Fla.1986).
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, ORFINGER, COBB and DANIEL, JJ., concur.
SHARP, C.J., dissents with opinion.
. An award to the wife of one-half of the $31,-000 annual pension benefits would leave the husband with one-half of the pension or $15,500 annual income while adding one-half of the pension or $15,500 to the wife's earning of $43,-100, giving her a total annual income of $58,600 plus the expectation of one hundred percent of her pension when it vests and matures.