Court Opinion

ID: 9513376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:34:49.85129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:50.364892
License: Public Domain

YANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring in the result.
[¶ 24] I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. I write separately to emphasize we do not decide the issue of whether or not an employer’s contributions under a retirement plan which the employee has no choice to join and from which the employee cannot withdraw, at least without leaving employment, is income for purposes of the guidelines. In Shaver v. Kopp, 545 N.W.2d 170 (N.D.1996), the income was deferred income which was deferred at the will of the employee and subject to withdrawal at the will of the employee, although with a penalty for early withdrawal. Id. at 175 (noting “record shows Kopp is allowed to withdraw his employer’s contributions, as well as his own, at any time, subject to taxes and penalties”). Nor does Shipley v. Shipley, 509 N.W.2d 49 (N.D.1993), determine whether payments to a compulsory pension plan to which the employee has no access are income for the purposes of the guidelines. Rather, the contributions were not included by the trial *520court as income because no information was presented but “we decline[d] to visit that failure on [the] children” and we reversed and remanded to supplement the record because accurate information about the employee’s pension plan “was necessary to correctly determine [the employee’s] gross income and net income” and “to determine the exact amount of the [employer’s] contribution to [the employee’s] pension and whether it qualified for deduction from his gross income” under the guidelines. Id. at 53. On this record we do not know the status of the retirement fund, and I agree with the majority that this was information readily available to Lawrence but which he did not introduce.
[¶ 25] As to the discussion in ¶ 20 concerning whether retirement and pension payments are to be included within income going into the plan as well as coming out of the plan, that issue was of concern to me when this court’s opinion in Shaver was issued in March of 1996. Shaver v. Kopp, 545 N.W.2d 170, 177-178 (N.D.1996) (Vande Walle, C.J., concurring specially) (questioning “[w]hat will happen in those possibly rare circumstances in which the deferred income is withdrawn while the support obligation is still in effect? Will it be considered income going in and coming out?”).
[¶26] As the majority notes these issues were suggested by opinions some time ago. I agree the record before us in this case is not adequate to decide the issues contrary to the trial court decision.
[¶ 27] Finally, I believe vesting in a pension or retirement plan is significant only to the extent it means the funds — employer or employee contributions — are accessible to the obligor. If the funds are vested but not accessible short of leaving employment, I question whether they should be included -as income for purposes of the guidelines. It would be self-defeating to encourage an employee/obligor to leave employment in order to access funds to pay child support.
[¶ 28] SANDSTROM, J., concurs.