Court Opinion

ID: 9530070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:57:08.832017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:59.628918
License: Public Domain

McDEYITT, Justice,
concurring in the result.
A casual reader of the Court’s opinion might conclude that this opinion is precedent for methodology of apportioning retirement benefits upon the dissolution of a marital community. Such is not the case. The Court’s opinion is dispositive of those issues raised in the case at issue, to wit Maslen v. Maslen.
1. D.A. Plan (Defined Contribution Plan)
The D.A. Plan is aptly described by Justice Johnson in his concurring, concurring specially, and concurring in the result opinion as a “savings account.” There is no *94apportionment rule or methodology to be applied to such an account. The account is subject to direct proof as to the amounts contributed during the marriage; which said amount, together with the income thereon and any appreciated value in the investments made (or subtracting the declination in value of investments made), is community property which subtracted from the principal balance of the account leave that which is separate property, if separate property is claimed.
In the instant case, the trial court correctly entertained direct evidence of the account balance for stated dates to determine the contributions made during the marriage and from such direct evidence determined the interests of the community.
2. F.B. Plan (Defined Benefit Plan)
The trial court, in valuing the community’s interest in the F.B. Plan (defined benefit plan), correctly applied the accrued benefit rule in apportioning the retirement benefits earned during the marriage of the Maslens.
The Court’s opinion in this case, in dicta, states that this Court will review for approval or disapproval, any methodology fashioned by the trial court to fairly apportion between the community and separate estate interests in retirement benefits. This statement is not consistent with the holdings of this Court, particularly in Shill II, wherein the Court held that it was inappropriate under any circumstances to apportion a separate interest in retirement benefits to the community or although not expressly held, to apportion community benefits to the separate estate. This is the holding of Shill II and the Court simply directed that the date of divorce be used as the cutoff date to determine those benefits to avoid apportioning separate retirement benefits to the community estate in that case. The Time Rule, if applied in any instance where there are separate estate interests and community estate interests in a defined benefit plan or plans, results in apportioning either community interests to the separate estate or separate interests to the community estate. This is so due to the fact that the Time Rule treats each day under a retiremént benefit plan as equal to every other day. The fact is that this is never the case; salaries increase, benefit plans reward the covered employee for longevity, and defined benefits are enhanced. The application of the Shill II rule forbidding the apportionment of separate to community or community to separate in dividing retirement benefit plans is an express abrogation of the Time Rule.
If this Court is to overturn Shill II and prior decisions, or revisit them in subsequent cases, it should consider a direct application of the Time Rule unfettered by the cutoff period contemplated by Shill II (date of divorce) and apply a rule of total equity. The result would be the adoption of the Time Rule from date of plan inception or employee coverage to date of retirement.