Opinion ID: 1407729
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Roberta's social security payments

Text: Gerhard argues that the district court abused its discretion by not considering Roberta's social security payments as an offset to the PERS distribution. Without citing to any legal authority for support, Gerhard argues that the district court should not have refused to look at any kind of offset for the amount of time, energy and money the community contributed to Roberta's Social Security benefits. Social security benefits to be received following the dissolution of marriage have been held not to be a form of deferred compensation, and therefore not to be community property subject to division between the spouses. Charles C. Marvel, Annotation, Pension or Retirement Benefits as Subject to Award or Division by Court in Settlement of Property Rights Between Spouses, 94 A.L.R.3d 176 (1979); see also Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 611, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 1372-73, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 (1960) (finding that the Social Security Act did not create either property or contractual rights); In re Marriage of Nizenkoff, 65 Cal.App.3d 136, 135 Cal.Rptr. 189, 190 (1976) (finding that social security retirement benefits are the separate property of the spouse receiving them); In re Marriage of Kelley, 64 Cal.App.3d 82, 134 Cal.Rptr. 259, 267 (1976) (finding that social security retirement benefits are not deferred compensation and that its federal statutory scheme is in conflict with a state court exercising jurisdiction to award these benefits as community property). Accordingly, social security benefits, or the payments used to derive those benefits, cannot be divided in a property settlement agreement. Further, they cannot be given any consideration in offsetting one spouse's community property interest in the other spouse's retirement benefits. Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 588-89, 99 S.Ct. 802, 811-12, 59 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978). An offsetting award, however, would upset the statutory balance and impair petitioner's economic security just as surely as would a regular deduction from his benefit check.... Any such anticipation threatens harm to the employee, and corresponding frustration to federal policy, over and above the mere loss of wealth caused by the offset. Id. The district judge specifically stated that he was not awarding an offset of Roberta's social security benefits when he reduced her monthly allowance from the community property PERS pension. However, he did consider Roberta's social security payments in the decree. Calling a duck a horse does not change the fact it is still a duck. Considering Roberta's social security benefits does not change the fact that this is still an offset, and therefore, error. See Olson v. Olson, 445 N.W.2d 1, 7 (N.D.1989) (holding that social security cannot be considered, distributed, or offset in marital property divisions); Marriage of Swan, 301 Or. 167, 720 P.2d 747, 751, 752 (1986) (holding that family courts cannot consider the social security benefits of either spouse when dividing marital property). For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court erred by reducing Roberta's community property interest in Gerhard's PERS pension when it considered her payments to social security, despite the court's attempt to deny this as an offset. However, the district court was correct when it designated each party's social security as their separate property.