Troutenko v. Troutenko
Decision Date | 06 December 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 16219,16219 |
Parties | Valentine John TROUTENKO, Appellant, v. Aida Awad TROUTENKO, Appellee. (1st Dist.) |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Schlanger, Cook, Cohn & Mills, Joel W. Cook, Lincoln H. Lynch, Houston, for appellant.
George L. Lewis, Charles M. Burdeaux, Houston, for appellee.
Appellant's sole point of error is that the trial court's divorce decree lacks requisite certainty insofar as it awards an interest in appellant's retirement plan.
The decree awarded appellee an interest in appellant's retirement plan with Anderson Clayton & Company, to be determined as follows:
The decree then awarded to appellant the 'equity' in the plan which 'at any time' might be payable to appellant 'subject to the charge' which was awarded to the appellee by the foregoing provision of the decree.
The decree concluded with an order that the parties execute all instruments necessary to comply with the decree.
Appellant complains that the decree is so indefinite and uncertain in this respect that the rights of the parties cannot be determined without resort to additional facts. Appellant's primary argument is that the designation of appellee's entitlement to payments at the time of appellant's 'earliest possible retirement' is not sufficiently specific as to time and that the provision entitling appellant to reimbursement for income tax liability resulting from the award to appellee does not sufficiently define the time or method for computing and effecting such reimbursement.
The very nature of a retirement plan creates considerable difficulty for the trial court in making a fair and reasonable valuation and award. See Hughes, Community Property Aspects of Property Sharing and Pension Plans in Texas, 44 Tex.Law Review, p. 60 (1966). The trial court acted within its discretion in making appellee's entitlement conditional upon benefits payable at some time in the future and in computing the amount of appellee's entitlement as set forth in its decree. Mora v. Mora, 429 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1968, writ dism'd); Webster v. Webster, 442 S.W.2d 786 ( ).
In Mora it was said that 'The trial court may conclude that considerations of fairness to both parties compel the entry of a decree that the husband pay the wife her portion of the retirement benefits, if, as, and when he receives...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Sutherland
...Houston 1st 1973, no writ). If a right to future bene-660 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio 1968, writ dism'd); Troutenko v. Troutenko, 503 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.Civ.App., Houston 1st 1973), no writ). If a right to future benefits or payments has been earned during the marriage and has vested in the spo......
-
Marshall v. Marshall
...of the other spouse's share in such benefits, 'as, and when received.' Ex Parte Preston, 162 Tex. 379, 347 S.W.2d 938 (1961); Troutenko v. Troutenko, 503 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston 1973, n.w.h.). Appellant's remaining points of error are The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ...
-
§ 7.10 Pensions
...61 N.Y.2d 481, 474 N.Y.S.2d 699, 463 N.E.2d 15 (1984). Texas: Swoboda v. Swoboda, 17 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App. 2000); Troutenko v. Troutenko, 503 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. Civ. App. 1973). [481] See, e.g.: Florida: Austin v. Austin, 12 So.3d 314 (Fla. App. 2009). New Mexico: White v. White, 105 N.M. 600......