AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute between a husband and wife over the division of the husband's Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) retirement account following their divorce. The district court had reserved jurisdiction to determine the wife's interest in the husband's PERA retirement account during a status hearing after their divorce was finalized. Subsequently, the court appointed an expert to value the wife's interest in the retirement account, which led to a hearing and the court's decision on how to distribute the retirement benefits.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, October 24, 2008: The judgment and final decree of dissolution of marriage and custody were filed, with the court reserving jurisdiction to determine the wife's interest in the husband's PERA retirement account.

Parties' Submissions

• Husband: Argued that the district court erred in determining that the wife’s share of his retirement benefits should be distributed before it is paid to him by PERA and in ordering PERA to perform a present value calculation of his benefits before he is eligible to retire.
• Wife: Requested on appeal that the court remand for the entry of an “Order Dividing PERA Retirement Benefits.”

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in its method of determining and ordering the distribution of the wife's share of the husband's PERA retirement benefits before they are paid out by PERA.
• Whether the district court erred in ordering PERA to perform a present value calculation of the husband's benefits before he is eligible to retire.

Disposition

• The order of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Michael E. Vigil authoring the opinion, found that the district court's order contained material contradictions, inconsistencies, and vague and unworkable provisions that precluded effective review. The court noted that while the district court has wide discretion in crafting a remedy for the distribution of retirement benefits, its remedy must be clearly expressed in its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court failed to clearly state its findings and conclusions, which precluded meaningful review of the issues. Additionally, the Court of Appeals found that the district court erred in ordering the husband to obtain a present value calculation of the value of the wife's share of his retirement benefits from PERA, given the undisputed testimony that PERA does not perform such calculations. The case was remanded for the district court to enter findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a final order regarding the court’s decision pertaining to the method of distribution of benefits that clearly and effectively determines the issue for review in any further appeal.