Court Opinion

ID: 9729395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:33:53.248744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:57.530634
License: Public Domain

LAMBERT, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
Judge Schroder’s dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals well expresses my view as to the proper resolution of this case. As such, I adopt and publish herewith Judge Schroder’s dissenting opinion:
I have a real problem with this case. Prior to retirement, the parties chose the “Survivorship 100%” retirement benefits payout. At retirement, the beneficiary and the benefits payable become etched in stone, with actuaries based on the age and death of both. The retirees had bargained for and received less retirement benefits monthly in exchange for 100% survivorship benefits. I be*94lieve that the retirees’ benefits become vested and the divorce should have no effect on the survivorship benefits. The bargain was to continue retirement benefits until death, not divorce. The policy provision which terminates benefits based on divorce is against public policy, and does not reasonably relate to the purpose of retirement benefits — to provide benefits during retirement, not during marriage.