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 retirement benefits following the dissolution of a marriage. The Husband, already retired, was receiving civil service retirement benefits, while the Wife’s civil service retirement benefits had vested but she had not yet retired and expressed no intention to do so. The trial court awarded each party half of the Husband’s retirement benefits and ruled that the Husband would receive his share of the Wife’s retirement benefits only when she retired.
Procedural History
- District Court of Otero County: The trial court awarded each party half of the Husband’s retirement benefits and ruled that the Husband would receive his share of the Wife’s retirement benefits upon her retirement.
Parties' Submissions
- Husband (Petitioner-Appellant): Argued that he should receive his share of the Wife’s retirement benefits as soon as she becomes eligible to retire, regardless of whether she chooses to continue working.
- Wife (Respondent-Appellee): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in holding that the Husband would not receive his share of the Wife’s retirement benefits until she retires.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Reasons
Per Bivins J. (Alarid CJ. concurring):
The Court relied on its prior decision in Ruggles v. Ruggles, which interpreted the "pay as it comes in" principle established in Schweitzer v. Burch. This principle mandates that retirement benefits should be divided when they are actually received, not at the earliest date they could potentially be received. The Court acknowledged the potential inequities of this approach but emphasized that it aligns with the policy of fairness and the practical challenges of ensuring equitable distribution in cases where benefits may not materialize due to unforeseen circumstances, such as the death of the employee-spouse.
Donnelly J., dissenting:
Judge Donnelly dissented, arguing that the majority misapplied Schweitzer and Ruggles. He contended that allowing the Wife to unilaterally delay the Husband’s receipt of his share of her vested and matured retirement benefits by continuing to work was inequitable. He proposed that the trial court should fashion a remedy to ensure the Husband could enjoy his share of the community property without unreasonable delay, such as requiring the Wife to pay the Husband his share of the benefits or awarding interest on the delayed payments. Donnelly emphasized that fairness and equity should guide the division of community property, even if the Wife chooses to continue working.