Court Opinion

ID: 9727457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:38:29.400032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:30.817241
License: Public Domain

HANING, J.
I concur in the result, based on my view that trial courts should have broad discretion in dissolution cases. The Family Law Act has created as many problems as it was intended to solve in the area of property distribution. Unfortunately, the appellate courts have added to the problem and created further confusion. We have also contributed mightily to the growth of the expert witness industry. Actuaries and other appraisers have never had it so good. This has, of course, only served to drive up the cost of obtaining a divorce, which is a regrettable consequence, since at the time the family is disintegrating the parties need to preserve, rather than dissipate, their assets.
When actuaries, such as those who testified as experts in the instant case, render their opinions on the present value of a pension plan, they necessarily make certain assumptions as to future economic conditions. As we know from various painful historical examples, economic forecasting is less than an exact science. Predictions of future human behavior are even less exact. Thus, when we accept testimony as to what the interest rate will be 10 or 20 years down the road, we are engaging in (to borrow a phrase from the Vice President) “voodoo economics.” Trying to guess whether an individual will remain with a particular employer long enough to ever collect a nickel by way of pension is hazardous at best, and sheer tomfoolery when we start awarding large sums of present cash based upon such guesswork.
In short, in those situations where the pension is unvested, or where certain conditions remain to be fulfilled before the employee can collect any*766thing, I think the better practice is to defer the division of that asset until such time as we know what we have.
A petition for a rehearing was denied June 11, 1985, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied August 14, 1985.
*767Exhibit
PRESENT VALUATION OR RESERVATION OF
EMPLOYEE-SPOUSE

*768JURISDICTION: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
NON-EMPLOYEE SPOUSE