Based on these findings, the court reasoned that Alfred had sufficient funds available to cover these expenses and noted that Ilona had similar expenses because she was responsible for the home mortgage. We conclude that these facts support the court's exercise of discretion in this matter and find no error. Alfred does not suggest that the court's division of his pension plan was improper. He instead disputes the court's decision to make the division begin on the date Alfred began to receive his pension payments and not the date of the divorce. Generally, marital assets are to be valued and divided as of the date of the divorce.
Special circumstances can warrant a deviation from the rule.
Ilona counters that special circumstances were present in this case. When he retired he simply quit paying. We agree that these facts are sufficient to support the court's determination that special circumstances were present and a deviation from the general rule was warranted. We find no erroneous exercise of discretion on this point. Alfred's next argument concerns the court's decision to hold open a determination on awarding maintenance.