Opinion ID: 884035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the District Court err in excluding from the marital estate the value of Alan's accrued vacation and sick leave?

Text: In the 22 years Alan has worked at his present job, he has accrued over 1,900 hours of sick leave and vacation. Upon his retirement, these hours will be added to his term of service for purposes of calculating his pension. Alan may use the leave as necessary before retirement, but it cannot be cashed out at any time. Its only value after retirement is to extend his term of service and consequently increase his pension. The District Court provided that Alan's pension would be divided according to the time rule formula, which is set out in In re Marriage of Rolfe (1988), 234 Mont. 294, 298, 766 P.2d 223, 226. See also In re Marriage of Truax (1995), 271 Mont. 122, 894 P.2d 936. The time rule formula provides for the division of a pension as follows: Years of service during marriage monthly -------------------------------- × benefit × ½ (after taxes) Total years of service Linda alleges that the time rule formula in this case should be amended to include not only the number of months [actually] worked by Alan but also the number of accrued hours of sick leave. Because, as we have noted above, any unused sick leave will be added to Alan's total months of service upon retirement, that amount will be taken into account in computing the pension in which Linda will share. Any sick leave or vacation time which remains unused at Alan's retirement is to be added to his total term of service when his pension is computed. Moreover, any sick leave or vacation which Alan uses between the time of the divorce and his retirement should be debited against vacation or sick leave earned after the divorce. This will prevent unnecessary drawing down of the vacation and sick leave which was earned during the marriage and in which Linda has a legitimate, if contingent, interest. However, adding the vacation and sick leave only to the denominator of the equation would serve to lessen Linda's proportionate share by reducing the fraction. For this reason, the sick leave and vacation which accrued during the marriage should also be added to the numerator of the fraction so that the fraction remains proportionately the same. Accordingly, the fraction in this case should consist of the years worked during the marriage plus the vacation and sick leave accrued during the marriage as the numerator, and the total years worked plus the total vacation and sick leave accrued as the denominator. The District Court, in specifying that Alan's leave is to be used in computing his pension, considered it to be part of the marital estate, not the same as a pension but rather as part of the pension. Linda fails to raise any cogent argument that the inclusion of the leave in the pension itself is erroneous; instead, she alleges only that the manner of inclusion is unclear, and we have rectified that problem. We therefore do not address the issue of whether vacation and sick leave may, under certain circumstances, be considered a distinct marital asset. That question is beyond the scope of this appeal. Since Linda will receive her proportionate share of the benefit of Alan's leave, and since Alan cannot convert his sick leave or vacation to cash at any time, we find no abuse of discretion in the District Court's refusal to classify Alan's sick leave and vacation as a separate marital asset.