Circuit court erred by concluding that spendthrift provision of Wis. Stat. §62.63 (4) bars it from considering City of Milwaukee pension as part of the marital estate. While the court cannot directly divide the pension, it has discretionary authority to order a payout or other orders to effectuate an equitable division of property.
Trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it declined to reopen judgement for Milwaukee County backdrop pension.
Wife was entitled to husband’s disability benefits where husband opted to received disability benefits in lieu of pension benefits.
While the statute of repose under Wis. Stats. §893.40 applies in family law. However, in order to avoid absurd or unreasonable results, motion to accept a QDRO for a WRS plan should have been granted since the law changed after the divorce allowing such orders. Therefore, the statute of repose did not begin to run until the change went into effect.
Trial court should consider unvested interest In Retirement plan. The fact that the interest is contingent does not mean that it can be ignored.
Court has discretion in whether or not to consider non-vested pension rights.
Court must consider unvested pension plan.
Trial court reversed for not valuing the unvested portions of husband’s retirement plan where it was due to vest two weeks after the final hearing.
Methods for valuing and distributing retirement plans.
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.