Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/399/399mass754.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 01:54:33+00:00

Document:
Following review by the Appeals Court, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 97 (1983), further proceedings were had before James M. Sweeney, J.
Edward J. Collins for the plaintiff.
F. Davie Edes for the defendant.
17 Mass. App. Ct. 97 , 100 (1983). On remand, the judge modified the property settlement by requiring that the wife receive thirty per cent of the husband's pension benefits attributable to the period of their marriage "if and when" received. The wife appealed, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We reverse the property judgment and remand the case for reconsideration.
receive her portion of his pension rights, if at all, only when he decides to retire. Consequently, she contends that the judgment is not an equitable division of the property within the meaning of G. L. c. 208, Section 34, and thus the judgment should be reversed.
Presumably because of certain practical considerations, the Appeals Court did not state that the present assignment of a percentage of the future pension benefits is the preferred approach. See Dewan v. Dewan, supra at 100-102. Chief among these practical considerations is that this method of dividing pension benefits is, as the wife concedes, generally appropriate only where there are "sufficient assets available at the time of divorce to divide the present value of the retirement benefits without causing an undue hardship on either spouse." Holbrook v. Holbrook, 103 Wis. 2d 327, 340 (Ct. App. 1981). Also, an area of discretion must be left to the judge because a pension plan may have specific provisions which favor an "if and when" division.
We conclude that, where the above-mentioned practical difficulties are not a controlling factor, the present assignment of a percentage of the present value of the future pension benefits is the preferable approach. Holbrook v. Holbrook, supra. It provides an immediate settlement of the pension distribution problem and it avoids continued strife and uncertainty between the parties. Damiano v. Damiano, 94 A.D.2d 132, 139 (N.Y. 1983). See Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176, 183 (1986); Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265, 268 (Fla. 1986); Dubois v. Dubois, 335 N.W. 2d 503, 506 (Minn. 1983); Kikkert v. Kikkert, supra at 477-478. As stated in Koelsch v. Koelsch, supra, the assignment of a percentage of the present value of the future pension benefits "provides a clean break between the parties, it provides an unencumbered pension plan to the employee, it relieves the court of any further supervision, and it relieves the retirement agencies of the duty to pay benefits to anyone but the employee."
determine "whether the reasons for the judge's conclusions are apparent in his findings and rulings." Id. We have examined the judge's findings and conclude that he considered all the necessary factors under Section 34. However, we cannot conclude that the reasons for the judge's property judgment on remand are apparent from the findings. The Appeals Court recognized that the original property judgment could be considered "within the range of equal division," but reversed the judgment, reasoning that "the apparent symmetry, if that was intended, depends on the correctness of the judge's finding that the husband's rights under the pension plan were to be measured by his accumulated contributions . . . ." Dewan v. Dewan, supra at 98. The "apparent symmetry" was clearly broken when the judge on remand increased the husband's interest in the marital home by approximately $5,200 (assuming a value for the home of $110,000 subject to a mortgage of $6,000 as found by the judge) and provided him with a seventy per cent interest in the future pension benefits attributable to the marriage if and when received. Although the husband received 100 per cent of the pension benefits in the original property judgment and, thus, his interest decreased by thirty per cent under the judgment as modified, the original property judgment erroneously valued the pension benefits at $33,963, on the incorrect basis of "that amount of money [the husband] presently has invested in [the pension plan]." The wife presented evidence that the present value of the future pension benefits was, at a minimum, approximately $200,000. Although the judge could properly reject this present value figure, the figure gives some indication that we do not have here a reasoned property division. Further, on remand the judge provided no additional findings to indicate why the husband should receive a substantially greater share of the pension benefits attributable to the marriage than will the wife, when the property previously had been divided in apparently equal proportions.
The case is remanded to the Probate and Family Court for reconsideration consistent with this opinion.
Weekly or monthly benefit X 30% X 22 years married, divided by the total number of years that the defendant was in the pension system.
[Note 2] This approach is consistent with the Appeals Court's opinion, which stated: "Where the marriage has been of long duration and retirement age is more proximate, the greater value of the prospective pension benefits may make present assignment as an asset unfeasible, at least in the absence of other significant assets, or the valuation of pension rights may be unduly speculative, especially where they are subject to destruction by premature death or termination of employment." Dewan v. Dewan, supra at 102. However, the Appeals Court noted that, in this case, the husband's share of the marital home could approximate in value the wife's share of the husband's pension rights treated as a present property asset. Id. at n.10.
[Note 3] The original property settlement entered on January 27, 1982, and amended on April 1, 1982, also provided for a division of the personal property and for an award of alimony totaling $39,000 over a five-year period from 1982 through 1986. Furthermore, the judgment of divorce provided that the husband pay college tuition and expenses for the two children of the marriage (unless the wife's gross income exceeded $15,000 per year, in which case the educational expenses were to be shared in proportion to the gross incomes of the husband and wife), and that the husband pay medical, dental, and hospital insurance for the children until each child reached age twenty-three or graduated from college, and for the wife until 1987, or until her gross income exceeded $15,000 per year. These provisions were not modified on remand.
[Note 4] These factors may be of lesser importance as a result of the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-397, Section 104, 98 Stat. 1433 (1984), which allows a former spouse to file a qualified domestic relations order pursuant to a State court property judgment specifying that private pension benefits be paid to the nonemployee spouse at any time after the employee spouse would be eligible to receive them. The benefits may be paid to the nonemployee spouse on or after the earliest date that the employee spouse attains or would have attained retirement age under the plan. See 26 U.S.C. Section 414 (p) (4) (A) (Supp. III 1985); S. Rep. No. 98-575, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 2566-2657. Provisions may also be made for survivor benefits. See 26 U.S.C. Section 414 (p) (5) (Supp. III 1985). Although the wife concedes that these provisions do not directly apply to pension benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System which are involved in this case, the Federal government will honor a State court divorce decree in which civil service retirement payments are divided pursuant to a property judgment. See 5 U.S.C. Sections 8341(h) and 8345(j)(1) and (2) (1982); 5 C.F.R. Sections 831.1704, 831.1705 (1986); McDannell v. United States Office of Personnel Management, 716 F.2d 1063, 1065-1066 (5th Cir. 1983). The Probate and Family Court judge should consider the effect of these statutory provisions in determining which method of dividing pension benefits is appropriate in a particular case.
[Note 5] The wife correctly points out that, where the nonemployee spouse's interest in the pension benefits exceeds the employee spouse's interest in other marital assets such that a complete division of marital assets under this approach either would be impossible or would create an undue hardship on the employee spouse, the approach need not be dispensed with entirely. On the contrary, an assignment of a percentage of the present value of the future pension benefits could be made to the extent that a hardship does not result for the employee spouse, while the nonemployee spouse's remaining interest could be realized if and when the pension benefits are actually received.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.