Court Opinion

ID: 9710333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:07:01.960745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:55.923523
License: Public Domain

McEWEN, President Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
¶ 1 Since the author of the majority opinion has undertaken a careful scrutiny of the record, and provided a perceptive expression of rationale, I hasten to agree that the settlement agreement provides for wife to receive alimony based on pension income of appellee only in monthly installments and not in a lump sum distribution, but am unable to join in the opinion as I believe the cash distribution of $99,071.50 of March 20, 1995, made directly to appel-lee and not to an IRA, was clearly monthly pension income requiring he pay 20% of $99,071.502 to appellant.
¶ 2 Since the other accounts, the $485,952.75, $440,261.83, $81,847.53, and $117,034.60 were rolled over to a qualified IRA account, those sums were not income to appellee.
¶3 The agreement contemplated and clearly provided for appellant to receive, in monthly installments, 20% of the income received each month by appellee.
¶4 Thus, I would require appellee to comply with the terms of the agreement which require periodic payments of 20% of his “monthly retirement income [derived from] pension payments.”
¶ 5 I join in the opinion of my learned colleagues in all other respects.

. This distribution was not rolled over to the IRA account and was ordinary income, taxable to appellee when received. Thus, it qualifies, plain and simply, as monthly income.