### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE SE PT E MB E R 1 3, 200 7 S es sio n
AN THON Y JOS EP H ZIOBR OWSKI v. MA RC Y H AY S ZIOBR OWSKI

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forWilliamson County

No. 95160 Russ Heldman, Ju dge

No. M2006- 02359-COA-R 3-CV - Filed Dece mber 20, 2007

DISSE NT

________________________ HOL L Y M. KI RBY, J., DI SSENTI NG:

Imust respec t fu l l y dissent from the majority ’s interpre tation of the 1995 final de cre e of div or c e to a

wa rd on ly $3 38 .3 0 p e r m on th o ut o f t he mon thl y

re tir e me nt b e ne fi t to Ms. Z iob ro ws ki. I n its discussion of the lang uag e used in the final dec ree , the majority notes that the trial cour

t observe d that the value of cer tain assets, including the GM retire ment plan, wer e “not disce rnible,” and that it went on to amend Ms. Z iobrowski’s “one -half of the $676.60 monthly

benef it pay able on
a c c ount o f t

he old Ge ne ra l Mo tor s r e tir e me nt a c c ount. ” I mpo rt antl y , h ow e ve r, the ma jor ity sk ims
ov e r t he tr ia l c ourt ’s state me nt o f i ts i nte nt. Th e fi na l de c re e state s:
The va lue of the pa

rties’ household f

urnishings, the GM retire ment benef its (old) and the ca use of a ction . . . are not discerna ble. The court intends an equal di vision of the se as se ts

. This decr ee w as not appe aled. Our job, the n, is to implement the orig inal intent of the final de cre e.

T h is Co u rt d is c u s s e d th e v a lu a ti o n an d d is tr ib u ti o n o f p e n s io n s a t le n g th in Kendrick v. Kendrick , 9 02 S.W. 2d

91 8, 92 6- 30 (T e nn . Ct. App . 1 99 4) ; se eals o J AN E T L. R I C HAR DS , R I C HAR DS ON T ENNES S EE F AMI L Y L AW § 11-13 (2d e d. 2004). In Kendrick , the Court explained:

L ike the courts in other states, this court has rec og nized two techniques f or valuing and distributing pe nsions. The first technique is the present value method; the sec ond is the retaine d jurisdiction or defe rre d distribution m ethod. The present value method require s the court to place a prese nt cash va lue on the pension intere st acquire d during the marr iag e . . . . Onc e the court computes the pr e se nt c a shva lue of

the pe ns ion ri g hts , it

awa rd s th e pe ns ion

to t he e mpl oy e e sp ou se and the n aw ard s the oth e r spo us e mari ta l pro pe rt y of e qu a l val ue . I f t

he mari ta l e state-2-

is insufficient to make a n offse tting aw ard, the n the co u rt m ay m ake an awa rd pa y a ble in i ns ta llm e nts

. Th e re ta ine d ju

ri sd ic tio n me tho d, a s it s n a me ind ic a te s, re qu ir e s th e c ourt to reta in jurisdiction over the ca se and to de fer dividing th e pension interest until the pension vests or mature s. I n some juri s d i ct i o n s , the cour ts using this method deter mine t h e nonemploy ee spouse ’s share in advanc e and the n enter an orde r ide nti fy ingthe po rt ion that the sp ou se wi ll re c e ive if and wh e n th e e mpl oy e e sp ou se be g ins dr awi nghis or

he r r e tir e me nt b e ne fi ts. Th e no ne mpl oy e e sp ou se ’s sh are is
c omm on ly

e xpre sse d a s a

fr a c tio n o r a

pe rc ent of th e e mpl oy e e sp ou se ’s mon thl y pe ns ion be ne fi t.

Kendrick , 902 S.W

. 2d at 927 (interna l citations and footnotes omitted). Her e, it appea rs that the trial court may

have done a combination of t h e t wo m et h o ds, valuing the pre sent value of the
mon thl y be ne fi t pa

y a ble a t th a t ti me a t $6 76 .6 0. Ho we ve r, the tr ia l c ourt did no t make an im me diate
awa rd to t he wi fe ; un de r t

he or de r, sh e wa s to re c e ive he r be ne fi ts w he n th e hu sb and re tir e s. Thus , the trial cour

t retaine d jurisdiction and stated the wife ’s share “ as a fr action or a perc ent of the employ ee spouse ’s monthly pension bene fit.” Id.

Th e ma jor ity int e rp re ts this to g ive Ms. Z iob ro ws ki the wo rs t of both wor lds ; she g e ts h a lf of the be nefit in 1995 dollars. Our ma ndate to value pension rig hts as of the date of the divorce does
no t me an th a t w e ig no re the c ha ng e in t he va lue of

mon e y ov e r t ime . T o a

wa rd Ms. Z iob ro ws ki o nly $338.30 in 2007 do lla

rs is t o ig no re the tr ia l c ou rt ’s state me nt o f i ts o ve ra ll i nte nt: “ Thec ou rt int e nd s a n e qu al d

iv isi on of t

he se as se ts. ”

Th e QD RO sig ne d by the tr ia l c ourt to i mpl e me nt i ts 1 99 5 d e c re e g ive s Ms . Z iob ro ws ki h a lf of Mr. Z iobrowski’s “a ccr ued veste d benef

it as of September

27, 1995, or t he nex t closest valuation date

. . . .” Th is a

pp e ars to b e an a

pp ro pr ia te imp le me ntatio n o f t he fi na l de c re e , a

nd so Iwo uld aff irm. I n the alte rn ative, I

would awa

rd Ms. Z iobrowski half of the prese nt day value of a 1995 monthly benef it of $676.60.

F or the se re a so ns , I

re sp e c tf ull y dis se nt.

__________________________________________ HOL L Y M. KI RBY, JUDGE