Court Opinion

ID: 9527118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:27:39.150483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:34.522790
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, J.
(dissenting). There is no need for a remand in the present case. This case was submitted on an agreed statement of facts by stipulation which included the following:
"The parties further agree that the Plaintiff’s pension *678fund has a present value of $1,393.00, and that the Plaintiff contributed $1,393.00 to said fund.
"The parties further agree that the value of the Defendant’s pension fund is $3,857.56, and that the source of this sum was from the employer * * *.”
The mistake that the trial judge made was in failing to give the husband credit for half of the amount paid by the plaintiff wife into the pension fund because her contribution obviously had to come from marital funds. The trial court decided that the assets should be divided on a 50/50 basis. The husband should be given credit for an additional $696.50, and the balance of the trial judge’s decision should be affirmed. The controversy, although important to the parties, is de minimis and the problems of noncontributory versus contributory pension plans, whether vested or nonvested, should await the existence of a controversy which highlights the opposing interests for our determination as to what is and is not marital property viewed in the light of genuine competing considerations.