Category Archives: Retirement Plans – Valuation

In Re Marriage of Ably v. Ably

Trial court fairly treated pension plans by comparing monthly benefits of husband’s plan and wife’s plan, rather than finding present value of each plan.

Year: 1990 | State: WI

In Re Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy

When court uses QDRO to divide a pension, present value of the parties’ interests is irrelevant to the property division.

Year: 1988 | State: WI

Ashraf v. Ashraf

Where there was affirmative, uncontradicted, expert testimony of tax rate on retirement plans, trial court must either accept it or explain why it found the testimony improbable or the witness discredited.

Year: 1986 | State: WI

Peterson v. Peterson

No value for pension where odds of ever collecting it were speculative and improbable.

Year: 1985 | State: WI

Marriage of Arneson v. Arneson

Pension should not be valued on basis of continued employment to age 65 because that is based on assumption husband would keep working and credit the wife with his post-divorce employment.

Year: 1984 | State: WI

Corliss v. Corliss

Current value of pension plan must be reduced for future taxes.

Year: 1982 | State: WI

Holbrook v. Holbrook

Trial court should be alert to advantages of dividing retirement at the time of divorce rather than postponing the actual division until employee-spouse retires. Where there are sufficient assets to divide the present value without causing an undue hardship, this method is preferred.

Year: 1981 | State: WI

Selchert v. Selchert

Valuation of pension based on price of a private annuity was improper. Pension should be handled by one of the three methods described in Bloomer.

Year: 1981 | State: WI

Bloomer v. Bloomer

Methods for valuing and distributing retirement plans.

Year: 1978 | State: WI

Bishop v. Bishop

In valuing a defined benefit plan, court should assume that the employee spouse retired on the date of separation.

Year: 1994 | State: NC

Dewan v. Dewan

Courts need not use the earliest retirement date when calculating present value – permissible for a judge to use a retirement age that is the “norm” for the spouse’s type of work.

Year: 1991 | State: MA