Court Opinion

ID: 9577683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:37:00.996758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:02.358869
License: Public Domain

Chief Judge Hedrick
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court “erred and abused its discretion” in failing to order immediate payment of vested pension benefits. G.S. 50-20(b)(3) provides that vested pension rights may be distributed in one of three ways: “a. As a lump sum by agreement-, b. Over a period of time in fixed amounts by agreement-, or c. As a prorated portion of the benefits made to the designated recipient at the time the party against whom the award is made actually begins to receive the benefits.” (Emphasis added.) The record before us contains no evidence that the parties have reached agreement about distribution under (a) or (b) above. Consequently, the trial judge had no authority to order immediate payment of benefits. Indeed, any such action by the. trial court would have been in direct violation of G.S. 50-20(b) (3).
While I recognize that the balance of the majority opinion is dicta, I feel it necessary to point out that the second valuation method discussed and approved by the majority is inconsistent with both statutory and case law in this state. Our law provides that the trial court must identify marital property, ascertain its net value, and then equitably distribute the property. Cable v. Cable, 76 N.C. App. 134, 331 S.E. 2d 765, disc. rev. denied, 315 *340N.C. 182, 337 S.E. 2d 856 (1985). The court must value the marital property as of date of separation, G.S. 50-21(b), and failure to do so is reversible error. Alexander v. Alexander, 68 N.C. App. 548, 315 S.E. 2d 772 (1984). Valuation is a prerequisite to distribution. Turner v. Turner, 64 N.C. App. 342, 307 S.E. 2d 407 (1983). In short, our law requires the trial court to value marital property as of date of separation even when valuation is difficult and the results necessarily speculative. The advantages of distributing without valuing this particular type of marital property are set out in considerable detail in the majority opinion. Despite these advantages, however, this is a course our law does not allow.
I vote to affirm the ruling of the trial court.