Posted on : August 4, 2016, By: Christopher Hildebrand
Valuing a Pension Plan in a Divorce in Arizona
Under Arizona law, the earnings of both spouses during the marriage are community property. Sometimes a spouse’s earnings will also include their employer’s contribution to a retirement account. The court must determine the value of the contributions made during the marriage. They are divided as community property.
In Johnson v. Johnson 638 P.2d 705 (Ariz. 1981) the Arizona Supreme Court discussed this issue. It evaluated a proposed method to divide a retirement account.
Facts of the Case
Dividing Spouses Retirement Plan Divorce.
Mrs. Johnson and Mr. Johnson divorced after 15 years of marriage. Husband had worked as an attorney during the marriage. His compensation included contributions to a retirement plan. He acquired vested rights in both a profit sharing plan and a pension plan.
At the time of divorce, husband had $17,047 in the profit sharing plan and $55,380 in the pension trust. These amounts totaled $72,427. Mr. Johnson did not have the right to receive payment from these accounts until he became 65 years old. Because of this, the trial court discounted the value of the funds at 6% interest for 22 years. This is the number of years between the divorce and when Emery reaches age 65.
The main issue in this divorce appeal is the determining the proper way to divide out Mrs. Johnson’s interest in Mr. Johnson’s retirement plan.
Dividing Husband’s Retirement Plan: Present Cash Value or Reserved Judgment Method for Awarding Community Interest?
The first is the “present cash value method”. Under this method, the court determines the community interest in the pension and its present cash value. It awards half of that amount to the nonemployee spouse in the form of equivalent property. The employee spouse receives the entire pension.
The second method is the “reserved jurisdiction method”. Under this method, the court figures out how the retirement payments will be divided between the spouses. However, neither spouse gets any payment portion until the employee spouse reaches retirement age.
The present cash value method works better when the anticipated date of retirement is far in the future. Here, Emery will not get retirement for 22 years. The Court found that the present cash value method worked well in this case.
The couple’s marital estate had enough equivalent property to pay Mrs. Johnson’s share without undue hardship to Mr. Johnson.
Discounting Value of Retirement Benefits
The trial court discounted the value of the benefits. It based the discount on the 22 years until the husband was eligible to receive the retirement. The Court reviewed whether this was appropriate.
Pension plans generally fall into two categories, defined contribution and defined benefit plans. Under a defined contribution plan, the employee or employer contributes a specified amount of money periodically. These funds are invested and the earnings are shared with all plan participates. The total benefits receivable under such a plan depends upon the success of fund investments.
Under a defined benefit plan, the employee knows the benefits in advance. These plans usually involve an investment of a percentage of salary, and no separate account is kept for the employee. In this case, both of Mr. Johnson’s plans are vested, defined contribution plans.
In a vested defined contribution plan, present value is very close to the amount currently credited to the employee’s account.
Discounting is appropriate if the employee is not vested or if an employee who dies before retirement forfeits the plan. That was not the case with Mr. Johnson’s plans though. Under a defined contribution plan like his, no reason exists to discount the value of the fund.
The Trial Court, therefore, incorrectly discounted the value of the pensions. It gave no consideration to the fact that the fund was earning interest and would continue to earn interest. It should not have discounted the value. The value of a defined contribution plan is the present amount credited to the account.
Reduction for Taxes
Mr. Johnson argues that the Trial Court should have discounted the value of the retirement account because he will have to pay taxes on it. The Court said that the amount of taxes he might owe 20 years from the divorce was too speculative to consider. The Arizona Court of Appeals distinguished this case from its prior ruling in the Baum v. Baum case.
Jennifer, thank you for being my attorney. I could not have been more pleased with the outcome of my family court hearing. Everything you have done for me throughout this case reflects in the final ruling of the judge. You helped me keep my head together and taught me a lot about myself as a person. I learned so much about my life from observing and listening to you. I will take all the advice you gave me to continue taking responsibility for my choices, continue to put the kids' needs first, and always stay truthful. Your diligence, dedication, and persistence in my case made what seemed impossible, possible. You are a wonderful person and an amazing attorney and I am stronger and more confident because of you.
I just want to again thank the Firm for working with me all that it has. I could not have done anything without everyone's assistance. You, Chris and Stacey have been and continue to provide me with compassion and hard work towards my case. Also a very special thanks to Kip for taking my case in the beginning. Also continued support from him and his dedication to providing me with his expertise in this matter.
After interviewing several law firms, I came across Jennifer Shick, and her firm, who I hired to represent me for my Family Court case. Jennifer has extensive knowledge of the law and is determined to bring the truth to every issue involved within the case. Throughout my case, Jennifer was prepared meticulously as well as went above and beyond all of my expectations. Even when the other party tried to differ from the truth, lie to the Judge, and turn situations around, Jennifer remained attentive and provided substantial evidence to show the judge the facts as well as the proof to support what was the best interests of my children. Additionally, Jennifer helped me endure many difficult experiences, situations and inspired me to remain positive throughout the entirety of my case. Her kindness, compassion, and professionalism helped me through very difficult times and made the process feel a thousand times lighter on my shoulders. She truly has my children and my best interest at heart and I trust her perspective as well as her honesty on each and every aspect of my case. She lessened the burden on my shoulders and even when I felt like the case was not going to go in my favor, Jennifer was open-minded and reassured me that the Judge would, in fact, see the truth, which he did and the case went in my favor. After nine months of court, everything finally came together. I cannot declare how much Jennifer has been an outstanding attorney. She addressed each and every issue with diligence, she cares about her clients and their families. Jennifer genuinely cares about her clients and her dedication to the details of the case was remarkable. Overall, I am extremely pleased with Jennifer’s services and I am truly thankful that I was so blessed to have her represent my children and me. I highly recommend Jennifer as one of the best attorneys in Arizona and if the situation ever arises, I will definitely have her represent my children and me again.
Dear Stacey and Kip, How can I ever thank you enough for helping me through the most difficult time in my life? I couldn't put into words my heartfelt gratefulness. You both were so compassionate and professional at every given moment throughout this process with me. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You helped me to regain my freedom.
I was a client of Attorney Kevin Park for the dissolution of a divorce in 2016. And since I had never had the need to hire an attorney before for any purpose, I was somewhat apprehensive of the process. But the very calm and professional demeanor of Mr. Park eased my fears. He adeptly answered all my questions and I clearly knew the process and what to expect. And the skilled manner he communicated with opposing counsel was perfect. When it came down to negotiating with my spouse’s counsel, I knew I had selected the best attorney for my situation. What I noticed and appreciated was that he was using just the right amount of pressure with opposing counsel as was necessary. If you find yourself in this situation, you will want a seasoned professional like Mr. Park on your side. I'm very grateful that he was my attorney and not the opposition!
Chris is a smart and aggressive attorney for his clients. Chris always tries to reach a fair settlement of his cases. I’ve represented clients when Chris was the opposing counsel and while he is professional and amicable to work with, he does not back off on what he needs to do for his client
Kevin Park of Arizona Estate Planning Attorneys was just what I needed for my divorce. He was very approachable and personable. He was quick to recognize what I needed and provided it quickly and efficiently. I hope to never need a divorce lawyer again, but if I know anyone else who does, I will definitely recommend Kevin.
I feel that Tracey Van Wickler is certainly one of the best family lawyers around. She is logical, intelligent, and truly cares. Tracey always does what is in the clients best interest, does it well, timely and with integrity. She is good at keeping her clients informed as to what is going on and clear in her communication both written and verbally. I have recommended Tracey to other people and will continue to recommend her. I recommended Tracey to someone who was having issues with their ex-wife and his response was, “I know how good she is because I went up against her and she ate me for lunch”. This same person was so impressed with her, he even recommended her to someone else, WOW, that is impressive! I am exceptionally happy with her attention to detail, her ability to explain things in ways that are easy to understand, as well as her ability to keep everyone focused on the most important things. I would recommend Tracey to anyone who may be in need of her services.
I retained Hildebrand Law after interview a number of firms in the valley. Working with Michael C. was incredibly easy and informative. My case progressed in such a organized and thought out way to ensure that my needs were met. Michael was incredibly proactive and was able to see far ahead into my case to steer clear of some roadblocks. I would not hesitate to recommend Michael Clancy, and Hildebrand Law in general, to anyone.
I have worked with Hildebrand law for about 8 years. They are always ready to serve, provide guidance and give you a few options. When they provide you options they also take the time to walk you through the pros and cons of each and give you a recommendation of what is best, but will listen to you and support whatever course you choose after making and educated choice. I’d recommend them to my closest friends and feel Chris Hildebrand is now a friend to me.
Despite the unfortunate situation I found myself in, Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law helped me maneuver every step with professionalism, expertise, and even a sensitivity that was an added bonus.Chris and his staff helped me even when I didn't know I needed the help. In other words. . . they made sure we did not leave anything undone. And in the rare instance we needed the expertise of another professional, Chris knew exactly who to recommend.Chris also knew, because of his experience, what to anticipate down the road of litigation. That meant we were better prepared to meet the challenges head on, which lead to a more equitable and fair outcome. I appreciated that Chris did his best to meet my every need in a timely fashion, even if I had a simple question that required only a phone call or e-mail or if we needed to talk face-to-face.I highly recommend Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law, PC.
Wife next argues that the trial court improperly treated certain debts as community debts.
Husband borrowed money, using his separate assets as security. He used the money from the loans to benefit the community.
The general rule in Arizona is that, if the money benefited the community, these are community debts. However, wife argues that this presumption arose during the epoch when the law considered the husband the manager of the marital estate. Now that this has changed, she claims, that rule should also change.
The Arizona Supreme Court considered and rejected this position. It found that the presumption of community debt remains in force but now applies to debt incurred by either spouse to benefit the community.
The question really, is: whether or not a spouse who takes out a loan (with the intention of benefiting the community) is separately responsible for repayment of that loan?
In the present case, Mr. Johnson took out the loans to the benefit of the community; the community benefited and therefore, the debts are obligations of the community.
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court decision in part and overturned it in part. It remanded the case to the superior court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.