Corliss v. Corliss
Current value of pension plan must be reduced for future taxes.
Marriage of Bouchard v. Bouchard
Trial court has discretion to determine appropriate discount rate in order to value a pension.
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.
Peterson v. Peterson
No value for pension where odds of ever collecting it were speculative and improbable.
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.
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.
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.