Court Opinion

ID: 9513806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:40:46.879272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:02.905587
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring.
[¶ 25] I reluctantly concur in the result and write to express some of my misgivings with regard to the majority opinion as well as that of the trial court.
[¶ 26] It is not entirely clear to me whether Lana is better off drawing a portion of Donald’s retirement rather than spousal support. It is clear, to me she presently would make more by drawing on the retirement than receiving spousal support. I do not know, however, if drawing now rather than when Donald would reach 65 affects the ultimate amount she might be expected to draw over her lifetime. In any event she is now receiving both the retirement and spousal support and it might appear that the reason for the decision is to punish Donald for retiring at age 62 rather than age 65.
[¶ 27] When the divorce decree was issued in this case it clearly stated that spousal support may be modified upon a change of circumstances and that Donald’s retirement would, in the court’s opinion, constitute a change of circumstances. Apparently the presumption is that people retire at age 65 and not at age 62, although *692that is also not entirely clear to me from this record. A person can retire at age 62 and draw social security at a reduced rate. That is often referred ,to as “early retirement.” Under recent changes to social security a person under a certain age may have to work beyond age 65 to receive full social security retirement. In any event, although I do not believe retirement at age 62 is unusual, I recognize that in the original divorce case Donald said he contemplated retiring at age 65 and, for the purposes of this case, that may have set a standard to which he should be held absent other circumstances.
[¶ 28] I also agree with the majority’s adoption of a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis of the evidence in a motion to modify spousal support. However some of the rhetoric of the majority opinion as well as the trial court, gives me concern that an argument will be made that because of Lana’s condition, Donald could be expected to work beyond age 65. I would not agree with that argument. If age 65 is “normal” retirement, retirement by a person of that age is a change in circumstances, even if it is anticipated. More likely, notwithstanding the divorce court’s statement about Donald’s retirement constituting a change in circumstances, this is simply the prelude to Lana’s request for permanent spousal support when Donald does retire, even at age 65. Absent subsequently occurring circumstances, to the extent the majority opinion may be read to support that objective, I do not join it.
[¶ 29] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, ■ C.J., and DALE V. SANDSTROM, J., concur.