Opinion ID: 2570151
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: It Was Error To Require Taggart To Purchase Survivor Benefits Without Determining Their Cost.

Text: The superior court ordered the division of Taggart's unvested FERS account by QDRO, awarding sixty-seven percent to Sabra while requiring Taggart to bear the cost of purchasing survivor benefits. Taggart argues that the cost of purchasing the survivor benefits should have been allocated between the parties in the same proportion as the rest of the marital estate. [32] We express no opinion about how the cost of survivor benefits should have been divided. But allocating the entire cost to Taggart effectively deviated from the allocation scheme the court stated it was following. Absent a determination (or undisputed evidence) that the cost of the benefits was financially insignificant, Taggart should not have been required to pay the entire cost of purchasing the benefits without determining how much the benefits cost and without considering how imposing that expense on Taggart would affect the property division. As we held in Lang v. Lang , we need to know the ultimate facts that the property division was based on to determine whether the superior court abused its discretion. [33] We therefore remand for determination of the cost of the survivor benefits and, unless the cost is insignificant, for further consideration and explanation of how that cost should be allocated.