In Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986), the Florida Supreme Court held "that a spouse's entitlement to pension or retirement benefits must be considered a marital asset for purposes of equitably distributing marital property." 491 So. 2d at 270. The court also said that "such benefits may be considered as a source of payment of permanent periodic alimony." Id. at 267. The court then said: Obviously, however, injustice would result if the trial court were to consider the same asset in calculating both property distribution and support obligations. If the wife,for example, has received through equitable distribution or lump sum alimony one-half of the husband's retirement pension, her interest in his pension should not be considered as an asset reflecting his ability to pay. Id. In Diffenderfer, the Court clearly held that an asset which has been valued to include the value of future distributions, such as a pension plan, may be considered marital property for the purpose of equalizing and distributing assets for equitable distribution purposes or as an asset source for payment for alimony, but not both. The Supreme Court of Florida clearly held that an asset which has been valued to include the value of future distributions for property distribution, such as a pension plan, may be considered marital property for the purpose of equalizing and distributing assets for equitable distribution of property purposes or as an asset source for payment for alimony, but not both. See: Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d at 267. "Injustice would result if the trial court were to consider the same asset in calculating both property distribution and support obligations." Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d at 267.