Opinion ID: 2222284
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Assignment of Plan Rights

Text: The husband contends that the dissolution decree erroneously deemed the wife as the alternate payee under the pension plan, attempted to assign plan benefits to her, ordered the husband to name her as beneficiary, and ordered payments to begin at a time that would require the husband's premature retirement. However, the trial court's order granting certain rights to the wife as alternate payee or otherwise requiring an assignment of benefits, was expressly qualified as only to the extent permitted by the Plan. Ind. Code § 31-1-11.5-11(b)(4) authorizes the division of expected future pension and retirement benefits by setting aside to either of the parties a percentage of those payments either by assignment or in kind at the time of receipt. The trial court ordered that the pension plan benefits to the wife commence upon the first regularly scheduled distribution date after date hereof and after all necessary applications and other paperwork have been completed which the Court hereby orders completed without delay inasmuch as the participant, husband, has heretofore obtained the earliest retirement age under the plan. The husband argues that his involuntary termination should not be required. We agree. To the extent that the final order granting the wife benefits under the husband's police pension plan would compel his involuntary retirement, the trial court abused its discretion. Because of the statutory inclusion of future pension benefits as divisible marital property and the authorization to order payment of such benefits at the time of receipt, and in the absence of trial court findings supporting a contrary result, we find that, under the facts of this case, the husband's immediate involuntary retirement should not be compelled. This cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to clarify the commencement date for payment of pension benefits to the wife so as to not require the husband's immediate retirement. In all other respects, the trial court is affirmed. SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER, GIVAN and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.