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 arises from a divorce between the parties, where disputes emerged regarding the division of the Respondent's retirement benefits. The Petitioner sought to ensure her community property share of the retirement benefits was not reduced by the Respondent's election of certain retirement plan options, while also challenging the district court's treatment of cost-of-living adjustments and alleged agreements between the parties. The Respondent argued that the Petitioner had waived her rights to certain benefits and that her appeal was untimely (paras 1-2, 15-25).
Procedural History
- District Court, December 20, 1991: Entered a partial judgment granting the divorce but reserved judgment on other issues for a supplemental judgment (para 2).
- District Court, March 4, 1992: Entered the first supplemental judgment, adopting the Respondent's proposed version (para 2).
- District Court, May 4, 1992: Temporarily set aside the first supplemental judgment to allow for further submissions and hearings on the retirement benefits issue (para 2).
- District Court, April 6, 1993: Entered a second supplemental judgment, incorporating the Respondent's findings of fact and conclusions of law (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner (Wife): Argued that her community property share of the Respondent's retirement benefits should not be reduced by the Respondent's election of survivor beneficiary options. She also contended that the district court erred in considering her social security benefits, in finding an agreement that waived her rights, and in its application of cost-of-living adjustments and the time-rule formula (paras 15-25).
- Respondent (Husband): Asserted that the Petitioner's appeal was untimely and that she failed to preserve her claims for review. He also argued that the Petitioner had waived her rights to certain retirement benefits through an agreement and that the district court's decisions on cost-of-living adjustments and the time-rule formula were appropriate (paras 3-6, 20-21).
Legal Issues
- Was the Petitioner's notice of appeal timely filed?
- Did the Petitioner preserve her claims for appellate review?
- Should the Petitioner's community property share of the Respondent's retirement benefits be protected from reduction due to the Respondent's election of survivor beneficiary options?
- Did the district court err in considering the Petitioner's social security benefits as an offset?
- Was there substantial evidence to support the finding of an agreement waiving the Petitioner's rights to the Respondent's retirement benefits?
- Did the district court err in its application of cost-of-living adjustments and the time-rule formula?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals held that the Petitioner's notice of appeal was timely and that her claims were preserved for review (paras 12-13).
- The Court reversed the district court's decision regarding the effect of the Respondent's retirement plan options on the Petitioner's share and remanded with instructions to include protective language in the judgment (paras 19-20).
- The Court affirmed the district court's decisions on cost-of-living adjustments and the time-rule formula (paras 23-25).
- The Court found no substantial evidence to support the existence of an agreement waiving the Petitioner's rights to the Respondent's retirement benefits (para 22).
Reasons
Per Bivins J. (Apodaca and Hartz JJ. concurring):
Timeliness of Appeal: The Court found that the Petitioner's notice of appeal was timely because the district court retained jurisdiction under Rule 1-060(B) to withdraw the first supplemental judgment and enter a second supplemental judgment. The Petitioner's appeal from the second judgment was therefore valid (paras 3-12).
Preservation of Claims: The Court held that the Petitioner's claims were preserved because her requests for findings and conclusions were timely in relation to the second supplemental judgment, which superseded the first judgment (para 13).
Retirement Plan Options: The Court determined that the Petitioner's community property share should not be reduced by the Respondent's election of survivor beneficiary options. It relied on precedent from In re Marriage of Gillmore and directed the district court to include protective language in the judgment (paras 16-19).
Social Security Benefits: The Court ruled that the district court erred in considering the Petitioner's social security benefits as an offset, as such benefits are separate property and cannot be used to reduce community property distributions (para 20).
Alleged Agreement: The Court found no substantial evidence to support the existence of an agreement waiving the Petitioner's rights to the Respondent's retirement benefits. The Respondent failed to provide evidence of such an agreement, and the Petitioner's testimony contradicted its existence (para 22).
Cost-of-Living Adjustments and Time-Rule Formula: The Court upheld the district court's decisions on these issues, finding no abuse of discretion in the adjustment of benefits based on one-half of the CPI or in the rejection of the Petitioner's proposed time-rule formula (paras 23-25).