Court Opinion

ID: 9508676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:36:30.25783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:36.468503
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GULBRANDSON,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority sets forth correctly the duty imposed upon a trial judge to determine the net worth of a marital estate prior to entry of a decree dividing said estate. However, the majority has ignored the fact that the net worth was not determined in this case, and there is no adequate basis for this Court to review the property division. Specifically, I am unable to determine if the trial judge correctly *260characterized wife’s $24,000.00 deferred savings plan as a better pension plan than husband’s vested pension plan of $247.00 a month upon retirement, where there was no testimony regarding ages of the parties or costs of a comparable annuity.
I would remand for additional net worth findings and reconsideration of the treatment of wife’s inheritance, which was found to be wife’s sole property, but was treated as marital property for division purposes.