Opinion ID: 2629868
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sally's age

Text: The superior court specifically considered Sally's age. However, the court did not find her age to be important because George is of a comparable age and both are approaching retirement. The superior court stated, [s]he is 60 years old. I completely understand that. I factor that in just as if I factored in Mr. Sloane's age in terms of his capacity as well. Since the court is charged with the task of fairly distributing the effect of the divorce between two parties of equally advanced age, the fact that Sally was sixty years old, by itself, is insufficient grounds to challenge the court's finding. Sally has not presented a cogent argument to this court why her advanced age deserves any additional consideration beyond that given to it by the superior court. Sally's reliance upon Broadribb v. Broadribb [18] is misplaced. In that case, we upheld a superior court's award of spousal maintenance payments. Mr. Broadribb's pension was not subject to court division, and Ms. Broadribb's age was relevant because at forty-eight she was likely too old to accrue any substantial employer-provided pension in her remaining work years. [19] In this case, George's pension was subject to court division, so a consideration of Sally's age relative to her ability to earn her own pension is not relevant.