Ruggles v. Ruggles

860 P.2d 182 (1993)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and W were married in 1959 and H was employed by Sandia. H had been employed there since 1958. Sandia maintained a retirement plan for its employees and H’s interest at the time of the trial was fully vested and matured. The trial court found that H would have been eligible for a pension of $1,570.71 per month had he elected to retire at 30 years. H speculated that he might retire at 63, but at the time of the trial, he was 50. The parties stipulated that as of 1988, W owned a 42% interest in H’s pension benefits. The marital settlement agreement (MSA) between the two did not provide for when W was to receive this interest nor any specific dollar amounts. The Court ruled that W was entitled to get 42% of the $1,570.71 or $753,94 directly from H effective June 28, 1988, and continuing thereafter until H’s retirement from Sandia and then she could get it directly from Sandia. The court also found negative amortization of H’s retirement benefits if he delayed retirement. H appealed: the trial court’s ruling contending it contravened basic community property law and misapplied the MSA in favor of W. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. The Court of Appeals agreed the MSA was unambiguous, but it disagreed with the meaning of the agreement, and it concluded that W was to get nothing until H retired. The Court then stated that the MSA was binding, but it has discretion to modify it to ensure fairness so that there was an equalized division of community property upon divorce. The Court then held that W’s position was contrary to Schweitzer, which requires a pay as you come distribution of retirement benefits and that any delay in her getting those benefits did not deprive her of her community property rights. The Court reasoned that the rights were always subject to H’s decision to retire. The Court also found that W could get a portion of her benefits amounting to $182.98 per month pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). W appealed.