Opinion ID: 2546062
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The pension fund

Text: Finally, Tammi contests the superior court's allocation of Duane's entire pension fund to him. The court dealt with the valuation and allocation of Duane's pension fund in this way: The total contributions during marriage on behalf of [Duane] are approximately... $31,475.68.... [Duane]'s pension contributions earned during marriage are awarded to [Duane]. The court did not state whether it considered the fund to be separate or marital property. This court has held that [t]o the extent that a party earns retirement benefits during marriage, the benefits are marital assets and are subject to equitable division. [34] Therefore, Tammi is entitled to a share of the marital portion of the fund, or at least to a portion of another part of the marital estate equal to her share of the fund. [35] For the court to award the entire fund to Duane without accounting for Tammi's share of the marital portion was erroneous as a matter of law. [36] Further, the superior court's valuation of the fund was problematic. The court appears to have correctly calculated the amount contributed to the fund during the couple's marriage. [37] However, this figure does not accurately state the value of Duane's vested pension benefits. [38] The court understated the value by not including Duane's employer's contribution nor any interest or investment return that has been and will be generated by the fund. This should be corrected on remand. [39] Here, the court did not use either of the two approved methods of distributing pension benefits (i.e., a QDRO or lump-sum payout). [40] Its valuation probably understates the actual value of the pension fund; Duane presumably stands to collect more than was contributed due to interest that has accrued and will continue to accrue on the funds. In any event, these are issues for the trial court to determine on remand, as discussed above.