Summary
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed a qualified domestic relations order dividing a former husband's pension under the parties' marital settlement agreement. The court held that the agreement required equal division of the pension as of dissolution, including post-dissolution interest and gains or losses, and that the time-rule method adopted in the QDRO properly effectuated that division. The court also held that the prevailing former wife was entitled to reasonable attorney fees incurred on appeal and remanded for determination of those fees.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the District Court correctly interpreted the settlement agreement and applicable law in adopting Cadena's time-rule method for dividing Fries's pension through a QDRO.
- Whether either party was entitled to attorney fees, including whether Cadena could obtain fees incurred on appeal without filing a cross-appeal.
Holdings
- When spouses agree to divide a pension through a conscionable settlement agreement, they may use a valuation method other than the two methods recognized for equitable distribution. Fries's proposed method was properly rejected because it would not equally divide the pension as of dissolution. The time-rule method properly gave effect to the agreement by equally allocating the pension's vested value, accrued interest, and post-dissolution gains or losses attributable to the marital interest.
- Cadena was entitled to reasonable attorney fees incurred on appeal under the settlement agreement's prevailing-party provision, even though she had not filed a cross-appeal. The amount and reasonableness of the fees had to be determined by the District Court.
Key quotations
“Instead, the parties are limited only to whatever conscionable methods they can agree upon.” (¶ 13)
“Equal division of an amount to be paid in deferred installments requires equal division of any interest that may accrue during deferral.” (¶ 16)
“Cadena is the party prevailing in this appeal. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, she is entitled to reasonable attorney fees on appeal.” (¶ 26)
Factual background
Cadena and Fries married in 1980 and dissolved their marriage in 2000. Their settlement agreement, incorporated into the dissolution order, provided that Fries's Teamsters pension would be equally divided as of the date of dissolution. The pension had not fully vested or begun paying benefits when Cadena proposed a QDRO in 2013. Cadena's proposal used the time-rule method to allocate each future payment, while Fries's proposal would have limited Cadena's share to half of the pension's vested value calculated as of the dissolution date.
Procedural history
The parties' marriage was dissolved in 2000, and the District Court approved a settlement agreement providing that Fries's Western Conference of Teamsters pension would be equally divided as of the date of dissolution. In 2013, Cadena proposed a QDRO using the time-rule method; Fries proposed dividing only the vested value as of dissolution. The District Court adopted Cadena's proposed QDRO and did not award attorney fees to either party. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the QDRO, held Cadena entitled to reasonable attorney fees incurred on appeal, and remanded for determination of those fees.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the District Court to determine the amount and reasonableness of Cadena's attorney fees incurred on appeal.