Court Opinion

ID: 9726460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:51:20.8582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:27.512420
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE BARRY, specially concurring: While I agree that remandment is required here, I find the opinion of the majority to be unsatisfactory. The record clearly reflects that the husband’s pension rights were nonvested, and because I stoutly disagree with In re Marriage of Hunt (1979), 78 Ill. App. 3d 653, 397 N.E.2d 511, and In re Marriage of Pieper (1979), 79 Ill. App. 3d 835, 398 N.E.2d 868, with regard to a lack of distinction between vested and nonvested pension rights, I believe the trial court must recognize the merit of vesting in determining the value of the rights as property or marital property. It is my position that pension rights must have some attribute of an indefeasible property right which is not subject to the uncertainties of life, death, illness, or continued employment in order to be property and consequently marital property. Nonvested pension rights are perhaps resources of sorts, but it is not until and if they are received by the pensioner do they take on the quality of deferred compensation for past services as an employee. Nonvested pension rights are too contingent and speculative to be classified as property. (In re Marriage of Ellis (1975), 36 Colo. App. 234,538 P.2d 1347, and Ellis v. Ellis (1976), 191 Colo. 317, P.2d 506.) Forcing the trial court to attempt to value a purely speculative interest in a pension right which has only a possible chance of ever being received appears to me to be an impossible burden and futile task for the trial court. I believe therefore that the trial court here should not include the nonvested pension rights of the husband in this case as marital property. As aforesaid, I do agree that a remandment is necessary, but for a purpose other than what the majority suggests, because the pension rights involved are not vested. The pension plan in the present case is a contributory one to which Mr. Donley has contributed. Therefore even though those pension rights are not vested he may have an indefeasible property right to the return of his contribution to the pension plan made during the marriage. Though such a refund of his own contribution does not cause the possible benefits of the nonvested pension to be marital property, nevertheless I recognize a marital property right in this contribution if and to the extent that he may immediately demand and have it returned, so long as he need not satisfy any future conditions or contingencies. A remandment then is for the purpose of determining whether he has an absolute indefeasible property right to presently demand his contributions, as well as determining the amount of those contributions to the pension plan during the marriage. If he does have such a right to recover his contributions, the trial court should equitably divide the contributions so received. In the event the husband has no indefeasible property right in and to his contributions, I believe they take on the speculative nature of the nonvested pension rights generally, and, as aforesaid, are not property or marital property subject to equitable division between the parties. I would remand with directions consistent with the views expressed herein.