Barry v. Barry (480 So. 2d 671, 1985)

PER CURIAM.

This case has been considered en banc because it sought to raise a question of exceptional importance: whether a pension earned during the course of a marriage should be treated as a marital asset for purposes of “equitable distribution.” Upon review of the record in this case, where each party has a vested pension and the trial court has retained jurisdiction, we have concluded that the trial judge’s determination was reasonable and must be affirmed, pursuant to the Canakaris test, irrespective of the answer to the foregoing question.

AFFIRMED.

COBB, C.J., DAUKSCH, ORFINGER, FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

. See Tronconi v. Tronconi, 466 So.2d 203 (Fla.1985).

. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980).