Pulliam v. Pulliam
796 P.2d 623, 1990 OK 71, 61 O.B.A.J. 1953 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a divorce proceeding, a defined-benefit pension plan that is marital property must not be valued solely by the amount of the employee spouse's accumulated contributions. Trial courts must instead determine the plan's value based on its future benefits, using either the 'present value' method for an immediate offset or the 'deferred distribution' method to allocate a percentage of future payments.
Facts:
- A husband and wife were married for thirty-three years.
- Throughout the marriage, the husband worked as a civilian employee for the federal government and participated in the Civil Service Retirement Annuity Plan, a defined-benefit pension plan.
- At the time of the divorce proceedings, the husband had contributed $42,200 of his own pay to the plan.
- Under the plan's terms, if the husband retired at age 55, he would be eligible to receive an annual annuity of $24,542 for life.
- If the husband were to terminate his employment immediately, he could only withdraw his contributions of $42,200.
- The husband testified at trial that he had not set a definite retirement date.
- The wife had been employed intermittently during the marriage.
Procedural Posture:
- The wife filed for divorce from the husband in an Oklahoma trial court.
- The trial court granted the divorce and, in its division of marital property, valued the husband's pension at $42,200, the amount of his accumulated contributions.
- The wife, as appellant, appealed the trial court's property division to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The wife, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the Oklahoma Supreme Court to review the valuation of the pension.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err in a divorce proceeding by valuing a spouse's defined-benefit pension plan at the amount of their accumulated employee contributions rather than its enhanced value based on future retirement benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Opala, V.C.J.
Yes. A trial court errs by valuing a defined-benefit pension plan at the amount of accumulated contributions because this method assigns an unrealistically low value to the asset. Such a valuation ignores the substantial future income stream the pension is designed to provide, which is the asset's true value. The court reasoned that it is improper and unfair to assume an employee will forfeit significant future benefits by terminating employment early to withdraw contributions, especially when there is no evidence of such an intent. Instead, trial courts must use a method that accounts for the future benefits, such as the 'present value' method (preferred) or the 'deferred distribution' method, to ensure an equitable division of the marital property.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a key precedent in Oklahoma family law by rejecting the simplistic and inequitable method of valuing a defined-benefit pension based on employee contributions. By formally recognizing both the 'present value' and 'deferred distribution' methods, the court provides trial courts with a flexible yet principled framework for treating pensions as significant, forward-looking marital assets. This ruling necessitates a more sophisticated financial analysis in divorce cases involving pensions, often requiring actuarial experts, and ensures that the non-employee spouse receives a fair share of the wealth accumulated during the marriage in the form of retirement benefits.
