The rule adopted in In re Minnis, supra, appears to be the generally accepted rule and we are persuaded that it is consistent with the philosophy of previous Colorado cases regarding the equitable division of property rights. In re Minnis, supra. This calculation will not affect the right of the employee-spouse to voluntarily choose to retire at any time either before or after that date. Applying that criterion to the circumstances before us, we conclude that wife's expert properly computed the present value of the marital portion of husband's probable future stream of income based on the statutory mortality table and the criteria set forth in the PERA law. Thus, the trial court did not err in basing its valuation on the testimony of the wife's expert and in rejecting the husband's evidence of value.
Husband next challenges the trial court's valuation of a car wash business owned by the parties.
Again, we find no error. Unless the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous, its valuation is binding on review. Here, neither party presented expert evidence of the car wash's value,and the parties' own valuations were sharply conflicting. However, the trial court had before it evidence of the parties' capital investments, the value of the fixed assets, and the business' annual gross and net earnings. The record thus supports the trial court's valuation.