Donovan v. Donovan

3 Citing cases

  1. Cohen v. Cohen

    937 S.W.2d 823 (Tenn. 1996)   Cited 312 times
    Holding that unvested retirement benefits accruing during the marriage are marital property

    See e.g., Root v. Root, 851 P.2d 67 (Alaska 1993); Cooper v. Cooper, 167 Ariz. 482, 808 P.2d 1234 (App. 1990); In re Marriage of Brown, 15 Cal.3d 838, 126 Cal.Rptr. 633, 637, 544 P.2d 561, 565 (1976); In re Marriage of Gallo, 752 P.2d 47, 51 (Colo. 1988); In re Marriage of Hunt, 868 P.2d 1140 (Colo. App. 1993); Krafick v. Krafick, 234 Conn. 783, 663 A.2d 365 (1995) (dicta); Donovan v. Donovan, 494 A.2d 1260 (Del. Super. Ct. 1985); Dozier v. Dozier, 606 So.2d 477 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992); Holler v. Holler, 257 Ga. 27, 354 S.E.2d 140 (1987) (dicta); Stouffer v. Stouffer, 10 Haw. App. 267, 867 P.2d 226 (1994); Shill v. Shill, 100 Idaho 433, 599 P.2d 1004 (1979); In re Marriage of Korper, 131 Ill. App.3d 753, 86 Ill. Dec. 766, 475 N.E.2d 1333 (1985); In re Marriage of Fuchser, 477 N.W.2d 864 (Iowa. App. 1991); In re Marriage of Harrison, 13 Kan. App. 2d 313, 769 P.2d 678 (1989); Poe v. Poe, 711 S.W.2d 849 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986); Breaux v. Breaux, 555 So.2d 1001 (La. App. 1990); Thomasian v. Thomasian, 79 Md. App. 188, 556 A.2d 675 (1989); Deering v. Deering, 292 Md. 115, 437 A.2d 883, 889 (1981); Janssen v. Janssen, 331 N.W.2d 752, 754-56 (Minn.

  2. Wilkinson v. Wilkinson

    905 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005)   Cited 16 times
    In Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 905 So.2d 1, 6-17 (Ala.Civ.App. 2004) (Yates, P.J., concurring in the result), and Langley v. Langley, 895 So.2d 971, 976 (Ala.Civ.App. 2003) (Yates, P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), Presiding Judge Yates argued that a spouse seeking a portion of another spouse's retirement benefits can satisfy § 30-2-51(b)(2) merely by proving a "coverture or marital fraction," i.e., the percentage of time the marital period relates to the accrual period.

    Forty-two states, including Alabama, are common-law-property states, requiring an "equitable," "fair," or "just" distribution of marital property upon termination of the marriage, which may include a division of retirement benefits. See, e.g., Alaska: Alaska Stat. § 25.24.160 (retirement benefits acquired during the marriage must be divided in a just manner); Arkansas: Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-315(b)(1), and Gray v. Gray, 352 Ark. 443, 101 S.W.3d 816 (2003) (discussing valuation and division of retirement benefits at divorce); Colorado: Colo.Rev.Stat. § 14-10-113, and In re Marriage of Hansen, 62 P.3d 1066 (Colo.Ct.App. 2002) (it is well-settled law that retirement benefits are marital property subject to distribution); Connecticut: Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46b-81, and Bender v. Bender, 258 Conn. 733, 785 A.2d 197 (2001) (discussing valuation and distribution of pension benefits for equitable-distribution purposes); Delaware: Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 1513, and Donovan v. Donovan, 494 A.2d 1260 (Del. 1985) (trial court abused its discretion in allowing spouse to keep entire proceeds of pension either by not considering those proceeds as a marital asset or by awarding two-thirds of marital assets to that spouse); Florida: Fla. Stat. ch. 61.075, and Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265 (Fla. 1986) (spouse's entitlement to pension or retirement benefits must be considered a marital asset for purposes of equitably distributing marital property); Georgia: Ga. Code Ann. § 19-5-13, and Andrews v. Whitaker, 265 Ga. 76, 453 S.E.2d 735 (1995) (vested and unvested retirement benefits are subject to equitable division); Hawaii: Haw.Rev.Stat. § 580-47, and Linson v. Linson, 1 Haw.App. 272, 618 P.2d 748 (1980) ("estate of the parties" as used in § 580-47 includes anything of present or prospective value, including nonvested retirement benefits, for just and equitable division of property); Illinois: 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/503 (all pension benefits earned during the marriage are presumed marita

  3. Freyer v. Freyer

    138 Misc. 2d 158 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987)   Cited 2 times

    Otherwise, it is not proper; (2) Minority Rule: Tax affecting is required of all equitable distribution property (Donovan v Donovan, 494 A.2d 1260 [Del 1985]); (3) Wisconsin Rule: "Reasonable speculation" and "fairness" is inherent in assigning values to future interests (In re Liddle v Liddle, 140 Wis.2d 132, 410 N.W.2d 196).