This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case concerns the division of community property, specifically pension benefits, following the dissolution of a marriage. The marital settlement agreement (MSA) between the parties did not specify when or how the community interest in each other's retirement accounts would be paid. The husband was eligible to retire in 1988, but he chose to continue working, which affected the value of the wife's share of his pension benefits (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The trial court concluded that the MSA was unambiguous and ordered the husband to pay the wife $753.94 per month, representing her share of the pension benefits, as if he had retired in 1988 (paras 1, 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Husband): Argued that the trial court's order was erroneous because it contradicted New Mexico precedent, the terms of the MSA, and the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 (REA). He contended that the MSA did not require immediate payments and that the trial court's order violated the "pay as it comes in" principle established in Schweitzer v. Burch (paras 1, 12-13, 20-24).
- Respondent (Wife): Asserted that the MSA entitled her to immediate payment of her share of the pension benefits. She argued that the husband's decision to delay retirement unfairly deprived her of her community property interest and that the trial court's order was necessary to prevent inequity (paras 12, 25-26).
Legal Issues
- Did the trial court err in ordering the husband to pay the wife her share of the pension benefits as if he had retired immediately?
- Does the "pay as it comes in" principle from Schweitzer v. Burch apply to this case?
- Did the marital settlement agreement require immediate payment of the wife's share of the pension benefits?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order requiring the husband to pay the wife $753.94 per month and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion (para 32).
Reasons
Majority Opinion (Per Apodaca J., with Bivins J. concurring):
The majority held that the trial court's order violated the "pay as it comes in" principle established in Schweitzer v. Burch, which requires pension benefits to be divided when they are actually received unless the parties agree otherwise. The MSA did not specify immediate payment, and the evidence indicated that the parties anticipated the husband's continued employment. The trial court's order effectively amounted to a lump-sum award, which Schweitzer prohibits. The court also noted that the wife could receive payments directly from the husband's employer under the REA, mitigating concerns about inequity (paras 13-31).
Dissenting Opinion (Chavez J.):
The dissent argued that the trial court's order was equitable and consistent with the principles in Schweitzer and Mattox v. Mattox. Chavez J. emphasized that the wife's community property interest became a vested right upon divorce and that the husband's decision to delay retirement unfairly diminished the value of her share. The dissent proposed a more flexible interpretation of "pay as it comes in," allowing payments to begin when the pension matures and is available, even if the employee spouse chooses not to retire (paras 34-46).