Opinion ID: 1405383
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kathleen's Cross-Appeal

Text: Kathleen challenges the trial court's refusal to include a provision in the QDRO granting her the right to survivor benefits for her portion of William's retirement fund. At the evidentiary hearing, Kathleen candidly acknowledged that when she drafted the provision dividing the marital portion of William's retirement fund, she did not specifically consider the issue of survivor benefits. Relying on Kathleen's testimony, Judge Greene found that the dissolution decree did not include an agreement for survivor benefits. After Judge Greene decided this case, however, we issued an opinion in Wahl v. Wahl [7] approving an award of survivor benefits under similar circumstances. [8] We observed in Wahl that, [t]o the extent that a party earns retirement benefits during marriage, the benefits are marital assets and are subject to equitable division. [9] For this reason, we held that each spouse is presumptively entitled to an equal share of the retirement benefits earned during the marriage. [10] And after observing that [t]he superior court has inherent power, and also the duty, to enforce its decrees, we concluded that [i]t was within the superior court's inherent power to award ... a survivor annuity. [11] Like the present case, Wahl involved no express agreement concerning survivor benefits, and no evidence suggesting that the parties had actually considered such an agreement. Yet we held that a survivor annuity was appropriate to ensure that Ilene [Wahl] would receive the full benefit of her property interest should Jerrold [Wahl] predecease her. [12] This holding implicitly recognizes that survivor benefits are an intrinsic part of the retirement benefits earned during the marriage, of which each spouse is presumptively entitled to an equal share. [13] We make explicit here what Wahl left implicit: Barring an express understanding to the contrary, an agreement for equitable division of retirement benefits earned during a marriage presumptively encompasses survivor benefits. Accordingly, Kathleen was not required to prove a separate agreement concerning her right to survivor benefits. Rather, an award of survivor benefits was appropriate to ensure that [she] would receive the full benefit of her property interest. [14] We must therefore remand this case for amendment of the QDRO to restore the deleted paragraph providing for Kathleen's survivor benefits. We also note an apparent error in the approved QDRO. Paragraph seven of the QDRO states that Kathleen's share of the retirement benefits should consist of ½ of the amount accrued during the time period from December 18, 1966, through July 19, 1988 (259 months), divided by [William's] total number of months in the plan[.] The 259-month span mentioned in this language reflects the total length of the Zitos' marriage, not the period during which William accrued retirement. William apparently began working for the University of Alaska in 1976, since the petition for dissolution claims only twelve years of accrued retirement contributions as of 1988. If the petition is correct, the accrual period listed in paragraph seven should be 144 months, not 259 months. The superior court should address this issue on remand.