Opinion ID: 1892593
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: highway patrol retirement

Text: Alternatively, Gerald argued that his retirement fund should not have been treated as marital property because it was in lieu of social security. In effect, he argued that if Constance's social security could not be counted, his substitute should not. Generally, unless there is some specific restriction in the plan, a pension or retirement fund accumulated during the marriage is marital property for allocation at divorce. Opoien v. Opoien, 425 N.W.2d 373 (N.D.1988). We summarized in Delorey v. Delorey, 357 N.W.2d 488, 491 (N.D. 1984): This court has previously held that profit-sharing funds could be considered in the division of property. See, e.g., Keig v. Keig, 270 N.W.2d 558 (N.D.1978).... Finally, in Bullock, supra, at 910-11, we concluded that a non-vested military pension was properly considered an asset for purposes of property distribution and that the district court's formula properly allocated the risks and benefits involved between the parties. Does the nature of Gerald's retirement fund make it inequitable to apply this general rule? Gerald's retirement fund has no conditions or uncertainties, unlike Constance's anticipated benefits. The legislature has not reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal the fund retroactively, but rather has declared that, [n]othing ... may reduce, modify, or enlarge any rights, privileges, or benefits in effect before any amendment to the retirement fund chapter. NDCC 39-03.1-27(2). Nothing in the plan, Ch. 39-03.1, NDCC, limits assignability or transferability even if the retirement fund is not subject to seizure upon execution or other process. NDCC 28-22-19. [10] Unlike Congressional direction for social security, the legislature did not completely shelter Gerald's retirement from allocation upon divorce. Gerald will enjoy the full benefit of his retirement fund either when he retires or when he leaves the highway patrol. Having ten years of service, Gerald is entitled to a full refund of all credits to his account in the fund if he leaves the highway patrol before retirement at age 60. NDCC 39-03.1-10.1, 39-03.1-11(7), and 39-03.1-01(1). Under state law, his retirement fund is vested and available to him at any time. Gerald's perceived disadvantage comes from a relatively recent change by Congress in the Social Security Act. Until 1983, Gerald might have accumulated his retirement fund during ten years or more of highway patrol work, and then also might have earned social security coverage during another ten years of insured work elsewhere. But, Congress acted in 1983 to limit this kind of double-dippingcollecting both full social security benefits and another government pension accrued without contributing to social security coverage. 42 U.S.C. § 415(a)(7) and § 418, particularly subsection ( l ). Gerald's retirement fund was accumulated without contributing to social security. See footnote 1. Under federal law, this separate retirement accumulation precludes full participation in the general national retirement program. 42 U.S.C. 415(a)(7) and 415(f)(9). [11] Social security benefits, either in one's own right or as a spouse or divorced spouse of an insured individual, are reduced by a proportion of the amount of such other in lieu retirement benefits. [12] Should Gerald's retirement benefits fall below a minimum, he would be eligible to receive social security benefits as a divorced husband. 42 U.S.C. § 402(c). But, as we understand this record, there is little likelihood that Gerald's pension from his retirement fund will be so small that he would qualify for some social security as Constance's divorced spouse. [13] Thus, Gerald's depressed social security opportunities stem from Congressional action, not state law. Correspondingly, if Gerald's retirement fund is not to be reckoned into the marital distribution, the direction must come from our state legislature. Although Congress has limited his ability to collect both retirement benefits and social security benefits, Gerald's retirement fund has vested, cannot be changed, and has a present value. NDCC 39-03.1-11. Since it was earned during the marriage, it was equitable for the trial court to take it into account in dispersing marital property. In this case, it was all set aside to Gerald through an approximately equal division of allocable marital property. In another family situation, the retirement fund may be the principal asset of a marriage and a different division may be in order. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's treatment of Gerald's highway patrol retirement fund as marital property as well as the distribution of the fund to him.