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

Heading: Police Pension as Property

Text: Section 2(d) expressly permits the inclusion of specified pension-type interests among the marital assets for disposition. We first determine whether the pension at issue fits within one of the three statutory categories. [1] As to the first, the husband did not have a present right to withdraw pension benefits because he had not yet retired even as of the date of the final order of dissolution, and was therefore not entitled to present receipt of benefits. Thus he had no present right to withdraw under section 2(d)(1). Likewise, the police pension was not within section 2(d)(3) as disposable retired or retainer pay as defined in 10 U.S.C. § 1408(a). The second category, section 2(d)(2), refers to the right to receive pension benefits either if not forfeited upon termination of employment or if vested as defined under section 411 of the Internal Revenue Code. The pension in question is not vested as defined in section 411. To be property under section 2(d)(2) it must therefore qualify as a right to receive pension or retirement benefits not forfeited upon termination. In the present case, the husband's pension is governed by the 1953 Police Pension Fund, Ind. Code § 36-8-7.5-1, et seq. A police officer who serves twenty years or more of active duty qualifies for certain benefits upon retirement. Ind. Code § 36-8-7.5-12. Thus, upon completion of twenty years of service, any right to receive pension benefits became not forfeited upon termination under section 2(d)(2), leaving the question whether the nature of the husband's entitlement to receive future police pension benefits constitutes a right to receive pension or retirement benefits under section 2(d)(2). Indiana case law has consistently held that public employees, particularly police officers, have no contractual pension rights until actual retirement. Klamm v. State ex rel Carlson (1955), 235 Ind. 289, 126 N.E.2d 487; Kern, Mayor v. State ex rel Bess (1937), 212 Ind. 611, 10 N.E.2d 915; Haverstock v. State Public Employees Retirement Fund (1986), Ind. App., 490 N.E.2d 357; Aikens v. Alexander (1979), Ind. App., 397 N.E.2d 319. When reviewing a statute, this Court's objective is to determine and implement legislative intent. Park 100 Dev. v. Indiana Dept. of State Rev. (1981), Ind., 429 N.E.2d 220. In its enumeration of the types of pension or retirement benefits includible as property for distribution upon dissolution, the legislature recognized pension rights not forfeited upon termination as a separate classification distinct from, and in addition to both rights that are vested and those with a present right to withdraw. Ind. Code § 31-1-11.5-2(d). Considering both the language and the general thrust of section 2(d) we conclude that the legislature did not intend to exclude police pension benefits for officers with over twenty years of active service who had not yet retired. To the contrary, we find such pension benefits are included under the definition of property in section 2(d). The trial court did not err on this issue. [2]