Ball v. Ball

Decision Date05 April 1994
Docket NumberNo. 24088,24088
Citation445 S.E.2d 449,314 S.C. 445
PartiesDaryl J. BALL, Petitioner, v. Mary J. BALL, Respondent. . Heard
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Deena Smith McRackan, Charleston, for petitioner.

Everett Hope Garner of Holler, Olive, Lengel & Garner, Columbia, for respondent.

CHANDLER, Acting Associate Justice:

We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeal's opinion reported at --- S.C. ----, 430 S.E.2d 533 (Ct.App.1993), holding that a nonvested military pension was subject to equitable distribution.

We affirm.

FACTS

Petitioner Daryl Ball (Husband) and Respondent Mary Ball (Wife) were married on November 12, 1981 and, after a one year separation, were divorced on August 21, 1991. Throughout the marriage, Husband was enlisted in the Army. At the time of divorce, he was a Sergeant First Class and had served for approximately 18 years. His military pension will vest after 20 years' service.

Family Court, holding that the nonvested, unvalued military pension was subject to equitable distribution, granted Wife a 23% interest in any future retirement pay Husband might receive. Distribution was deferred until Husband receives the pension payments. Husband appealed. Court of Appeals affirmed.

ISSUES

1. Is a nonvested military pension subject to equitable distribution?

2. Did the Family Court err in failing to value the pension?

3. Was Wife entitled to 23% of the nonvested pension?

DISCUSSION
A. Nonvested Pension

Husband contends Court of Appeals erred in holding that nonvested military pensions are marital property subject to equitable distribution. We disagree.

S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-473 (Supp.1993) defines marital property as "all real and personal property which has been acquired by the parties during the marriage and which is owned as of the date of filing or commencement of marital litigation...."

In Tiffault v. Tiffault, 303 S.C. 391, 401 S.E.2d 157 (1991), we held that a vested military pension is subject to equitable distribution:

[M]ilitary retirement benefits accrued during marriage constitute a joint investment of both parties. Typically, as in this case, a military spouse must move from place to place and consequently forfeit a separate career or make other outstanding contributions in support of the marriage. Military retirement pay is essentially compensation for past services.

303 S.C. at 392, 401 S.E.2d at 158. However, the issue of whether a nonvested pension is marital property was novel to this state prior to Court of Appeals' opinion.

Court of Appeals reasoned that Husband has a vested right to participate in the military pension plan, even though the pension plan itself is not vested. Thus, the pension benefits, if and when received, would be a form of deferred compensation for his years of military service. The court concluded that such a right to participate is "property" subject to equitable distribution.

We agree with Court of Appeal's analysis. Whether vested or nonvested, pension plans are deferred compensation. As in Tiffault, to the extent that Wife participated in Husband's military career, she also contributed to the service for which he will be compensated in the future. We hold that Husband's participation in the pension plan was an actual right existing at the time of the divorce, even though the compensation, if received, is deferred.

Accordingly, a nonvested military pension plan is marital property. It is within the discretion of the Family court to determine, from the facts of each case, what portion, if any, of the benefits spouse is entitled to receive.

B. Valuation

Husband contends that, because the pension plan is not valued, it cannot be included as marital property. We disagree.

The Family Court must value the property to be distributed. S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-474 (Supp.1993). Here, the pension plan essentially has no value until vestment.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that a finding of no current value is sufficient. Since the distribution of the other assets is not affected by the award of the nonvested pension plan, its exact dollar value is not crucial. Rather, the court must only determine the portion of the plan to which the spouse is entitled. Cf. Kneece v. Kneece, 296 S.C. 28, 370 S.E.2d 288 (Ct.App.1988).

C. Percentage of Wife's Share

Family Court awarded Wife 23% of any pension benefits received by Husband. This reflects the ratio of the number of years the parties were married to the total number of years of Husband's military service. Husband contends that this award was in error because Wife's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Bender v. Bender
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • December 18, 2001
    ...Berrington v. Berrington, 409 Pa. Super. 355, 360, 598 A.2d 31 (1991), aff d, 534 Pa. 393, 633 A.2d 589 (1993); Ball v. Ball, 314 S.C. 445, 447, 445 S.E.2d 449 (1994); Grode v. Grode, 543 N.W.2d 795, 802 (S.D. 1996); Cohen v. Cohen, supra, 937 S.W.2d 825; Cearley v. Cearley, 544 S.W.2d 661,......
  • Wilkinson v. Wilkinson
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • April 16, 2004
    ...benefits generally are marital property subject to equitable division); South Carolina: S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-472, and Ball v. Ball, 314 S.C. 445, 445 S.E.2d 449 (1994) (whether vested or nonvested, pension benefits are deferred compensation and as such are marital property subject to equita......
  • Kendrick v. Kendrick
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • November 16, 1994
    ...retirement interest. In re Marriage of Mantei, 222 Ill.App.3d 933, 164 Ill.Dec. 870, 873, 583 N.E.2d 1192, 1195 (1991); Ball v. Ball, 445 S.E.2d at 451; Blumberg, supra, 2 Valuation & Distribution of Marital Prop. § 23.02[c]. It also avoids the problems caused when the marital estate does n......
  • Cohen v. Cohen
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • September 16, 1996
    ...769 P.2d 179 (1989); Gordon v. Gordon, 436 Pa.Super. 126, 647 A.2d 530 (1994); Moran v. Moran, 612 A.2d 26 (R.I.1992); Ball v. Ball, 314 S.C. 445, 445 S.E.2d 449 (1994); Grode v. Grode, 543 N.W.2d 795 (S.D.1996); Kendrick v. Kendrick, 902 S.W.2d 918 (Tenn.App.1994); Dewey v. Dewey, 745 S.W.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • § 7.10 Pensions
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Divorce, Separation and the Distribution of Property Title CHAPTER 7 Property Acquired or Improved with Both Separate and Marital Property
    • Invalid date
    ...307 Ore. 370, 769 P.2d 179 (1989). Pennsylvania: Flynn v. Flynn, 341 Pa. Super. 76, 491 A.2d 156 (1985). South Carolina: Ball v. Ball, 314 S.C. 445, 445 S.E.2d 449 (1994). South Dakota: Grode v. Grode, 543 N.W.2d 795 (S.D. 1996); Caughron v. Caughron, 418 N.W.2d 791 (S.D. 1988). Tennessee: ......
  • Chapter Seven Property
    • United States
    • Marital Litigation in South Carolina (SCBar)
    • Invalid date
    ...and providing other services of benefit to him and his children. Ball v. Ball, 312 S.C. 31, 430 S.E.2d 533 (Ct. App. 1993), aff'd, 314 S.C. 445, 445 S.E.2d 449 (1994). An action to seek marital distribution of military retirement benefits may be brought after a divorce, if the court which h......
  • § 12.03 Military Longevity and Disability Retirement
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Divorce, Separation and the Distribution of Property Title CHAPTER 12 Division of Federal Benefits
    • Invalid date
    ...(Okla. 1987). Pennsylvania: Major v. Major, 518 A.2d 1267, 13 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1124 (Pa. Super. 1986). South Carolina: Ball v. Ball, 314 S.C. 445, 445 S.E.2d 449 (1994) (unvested rights); Martin v. Martin, 296 S.C. 436, 373 S.E.2d 706 (S.C. App. 1988) (considering vested right to military......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT