This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see
Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please
also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other
deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the
filing date.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 HOPE LIBERTY SALAZAR,
3 Petitioner-Appellee,
4 v. NO. 30,079
5 ANTHONY JOHN SALAZAR,
6 Respondent-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
8 Angela J. Jewell, District Judge
9 Johnson Family Law, P.C.
10 Barbara V. Johnson
11 Albuquerque, NM
12 for Appellee
13 Hunter Law Firm
14 Colin Hunter
15 Albuquerque, NM
16 for Appellant
17 MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 VIGIL, Judge.
19 I. INTRODUCTION
1 Husband appeals from an order of the district court determining Wife’s interest
2 in Husband’s PERA retirement account. We reverse and remand for further
3 proceedings.
4 II. BACKGROUND
5 The judgment and final decree of dissolution of marriage and custody was filed
6 on October 24, 2008, with the district court reserving jurisdiction to determine Wife’s
7 interest in Husband’s PERA retirement account at a status hearing in May 2009.
8 Following the status conference, the district court entered its order finding that Wife’s
9 interest in Husband’s PERA benefits “needs to be valued and reduced to present cash
10 value,” and the district court appointed Dr. John Myers as its expert pursuant to Rule
11 11-706 NMRA to assist the court on this issue. After Dr. Myers submitted his report,
12 a hearing was held.
13 At the hearing, Husband presented testimony from a PERA representative that
14 PERA does not conduct present day valuations of retirement benefits, and the earliest
15 PERA can prepare an estimation of an employee’s benefits is three years before the
16 employee’s eligibility for retirement. She also testified that PERA requires an order
17 from the court identifying the community interest and an identification of the division
18 of that interest between the parties in order to divide retirement benefits between the
19 parties.
2
1 Husband testified that he was forty-two years old, had completed fourteen
2 years of service, and that he believed he would be eligible to retire in September 2020.
3 The PERA representative testified that a person is eligible for retirement under the
4 state general plan 3 when he has completed twenty-five years of service with the state
5 at any age, or on a sliding scale of service of years upon reaching the age of sixty.
6 Following the hearing, the district court filed its findings of fact and
7 conclusions of law (order). In pertinent part, the district court made the following
8 findings of fact:
9 5. In the case of Ruggles v. Ruggles, 116 N.M. 52, 860 P.2d 182
10 [(1993)], the Supreme Court stated: We hold that the preferred method
11 of dealing with these community assets is to treat them as all other
12 community assets are treated on dissolution—namely, to value, divide,
13 and distribute them (or other assets of equivalent value) to the divorcing
14 spouses. We realize that in some cases, given the innumerable variations
15 in pension plans and the infinite variety in the circumstances of
16 individual divorcing couples, it will not be possible or practicable to
17 achieve this preferred method of distribution and that other methods,
18 including the reserved jurisdiction [or] pay as it comes in method, will
19 have to be utilized.
20 ....
21 7. Dr. Myers found that the present value of the community interest
22 in [Husband’s] PERA benefits as of the end of the community, is about
23 $200,000.00, making each party’s interest at $100,000.00.
24 8. Ruggles, quoting from Copeland v. Copeland, 91 N.M. 409, 575
25 P.2d 99 [(1978)], states: It would appear that a flexible approach to this
26 problem is needed. The trial court should make a determination of the
27 present value of the unmatured pension benefits with a division of assets
28 which includes this amount, or divide the pension on a pay as it comes
3
1 in system. This way, if the community has sufficient assets to cover the
2 value of the pension, an immediate division would make a final
3 disposition; but, if the pension is the only valuable asset of the
4 community and the employee spouse could not afford to deliver either
5 goods or property worth the other spouse’s interest, then the trial court
6 may award the non-employee spouse his/her portion as the benefits are
7 paid.
8 ....
9 17. The community has no assets to pay [Wife] her present cash value
10 of [Husband’s] PERA benefits.
11 18. When the youngest child is school age, the work related day care
12 expense will terminate or be substantially reduced, and [Husband] will
13 have the means to pay to [Wife] her then interest in his PERA benefits,
14 whether he has elected to retire or not.
15 19. Once [Husband] retires, a QDRO can be entered to pay directly to
16 [Wife], her then community interest.
17 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The district court then entered the following
18 pertinent conclusions of law:
19 2. The [c]ourt finds that based on the individual circumstances of this
20 divorcing couple, it is not possible or practicable to exercise the
21 preferred method of distribution, that being to order [Husband] to pay at
22 the time of divorce, the present cash value of [Wife’s half] interest in his
23 PERA benefits.
24 3. The [c]ourt chooses to exercise the reserved jurisdiction method.
25 4. The [c]ourt hereby reserves jurisdiction over the issue of
26 distribution of [Wife’s] interest in [Husband’s] PERA benefits, until [the
27 parties’ youngest child], . . . reaches the age of six (6), that being [in]
28 November . . . 2011.
4
1 5. If [Husband] does not elect to retire by November . . . 2011, then
2 in that event, he shall commence to pay directly to [Wife], her then
3 valued interest in his PERA retirement account. This shall be effective
4 November 15, 2011, and each and every month thereafter[.]
5 6. The PERA Administration Agency shall be contacted in August
6 of 2011, to determine [Wife’s] community interest in [Husband’s]
7 PERA benefits. Contact shall be made by [Husband].
8 7. When [Husband] elects to retire, then in that event, counsel shall
9 execute a QDRO, to be submitted to the PERA Plan Account
10 Administrator.
11 III. ANALYSIS
12 Husband appeals from the district court order, arguing that the district court
13 erred in (1) making a determination that Wife’s share of the his retirement benefits
14 should be distributed before it is paid to Husband by PERA, and (2) in ordering PERA
15 to perform a present value calculation of his benefits before he is eligible to retire.
16 Wife also requests on appeal that we remand for the entry of an “Order Dividing
17 PERA Retirement Benefits.”
18 While the district court has wide discretion under Ruggles in crafting a remedy
19 for the distribution of retirement benefits when the marital assets are insufficient to
20 support immediate division of the value of the pension, the district court’s remedy
21 must be clearly expressed in its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. See
22 Ruggles, 116 N.M. at 61-62, 860 P.2d at 191-92 (“[T]he trial court should have
23 discretion in implementing [the lump sum] method, alone or in combination with other
5
1 methods, including in an appropriate case the reserved jurisdiction method, in
2 distributing the nonemployee spouse’s interest upon dissolution.”); Rule 1-052
3 NMRA (requiring the district court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law
4 when requested by a party in a non-jury trial).
5 The parties disagree as to the meaning of the district court order regarding the
6 requirements of Husband paying retirement benefits to Wife. Moreover, the district
7 court’s oral statements from the bench appear to be different from the remedy directed
8 in its written order. See San Pedro Neighborhood Ass’n v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of
9 Santa Fe Cnty., 2009-NMCA-045, ¶ 8, 146 N.M. 106, 206 P.3d 1011 (“We do not
10 consider the oral ruling as a final order, but simply as instructive in determining the
11 court’s intent where an ambiguity exists in the court’s decision.” (internal quotation
12 marks and citation omitted)). We conclude that the order contains material
13 contradictions, inconsistencies, and vague and unworkable provisions that preclude
14 effective review of the issues.
15 The unchallenged findings of fact establish that the lump sum distribution as
16 advised under Ruggles is not a feasible method of distribution in this case. See
17 Ruggles, 116 N.M. at 61-62, 860 P.2d at 191-92; Stueber v. Pickard, 112 N.M. 489,
18 491, 816 P.2d 1111, 1113 (1991) (stating that unchallenged findings of fact are
19 binding on appeal). Thus, the district court was entitled in its discretion to fashion
20 another method of payment of Wife’s share in the retirement benefits. See Ruggles,
6
1 116 N.M. at 61-62, 860 P.2d at 191-92. This being said, we are at a loss to understand
2 exactly what the district court ordered and why. The evidence is uncontradicted that
3 Husband cannot retire by November 2011; however, the order speaks in terms of what
4 may occur if Husband “elects” not to retire by November 2011. Moreover, what is
5 supposed to happen in November 2011, if Husband “elects” not to retire is at best
6 ambiguous. While it appears that the order contemplates monthly payments, it fails
7 to specify the amount of the monthly payment, whether the monthly payments remain
8 the same, or how long the payments are to continue. Moreover, and critical to our
9 conclusion, the order makes no determination of the value of Husband’s retirement,
10 reduced to present value as of the date of the divorce, or what Wife’s actual interest
11 in the retirement account is.
12 Thus, the district court’s failure to clearly state its findings and conclusions
13 precludes our ability to engage in meaningful review of this issue. See Foutz v. Foutz,
14 110 N.M. 642, 645, 798 P.2d 592, 595 (Ct. App. 1990). We therefore remand for the
15 district court to enter findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a final order regarding
16 the court’s decision pertaining to the method of distribution of benefits that clearly
17 and effectively determines the issue for review in any further appeal. See State ex rel.
18 Human Servs. Dep’t v. Coleman, 104 N.M. 500, 505, 723 P.2d 971, 976 (Ct. App.
19 1986) (“Where doubt or ambiguity exists as to whether the [district] court considered
20 relevant evidence, or where other findings are required, the ends of justice require that
7
1 the cause be remanded to the district court for the entry of additional findings and
2 conclusions of law.”), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Alberico, 116 N.M. 156,
3 861 P.2d 192 (1993).
4 In addition, the district court order requires Husband to contact PERA in
5 August of 2011 “to determine [Wife’s] community interest in [Husband’s] PERA
6 benefits.” Husband contends this was error because the undisputed evidence before
7 the district court is that PERA will not perform present day valuations. Alternatively,
8 Wife asserts that this provision of the order should be ignored as harmless error
9 because, she contends, the district court adopted Dr. Myers’ finding that the present
10 value of Wife’s interest is $100,000, making this directive by the district court merely
11 “superfluous.” We conclude that the district court ordered PERA to value the benefits
12 and that it was error to do so.
13 Although the order takes note of Dr. Myers’ calculation of the present value,
14 it does not adopt that calculation as the court’s own finding of the present value of the
15 pension. Instead, the order directs Husband to contact PERA in August 2011 to
16 determine Wife’s interest in the retirement benefits. No logical reading of the order
17 leads to a conclusion other than that the district court intends to rely on PERA’s
18 valuation to establish Wife’s interest in Husband’s retirement benefits. However, the
19 undisputed testimony at the hearing was that PERA does not perform present value
20 calculations on retirement benefits. Thus, the district court erred in ordering Husband
8
1 to obtain a present value calculation of the value of Wife’s share of his retirement
2 benefits from PERA.
3 Upon remand, the district court must adopt a clear and definite method of
4 valuation of the benefits accrued during the marriage. See Gilmore v. Gilmore, 2010-
5 NMCA-013, ¶ 53, 147 N.M. 625, 227 P.3d 115 (“[U]nless and until our Supreme
6 Court or Legislature decides that district courts are to default to a particular rule,
7 formula, or methodology [for calculating division of retirement benefits between
8 divorcing spouses], it is essential for effective appellate review on the issues that the
9 court explain why it has chosen the formula or method of calculation that it uses.”).
10 The district court must first attempt to assign a present day valuation of the benefits
11 as of the date of the divorce. See Ruggles, 116 N.M. at 67-68, 860 P.2d at 197-98;
12 Mattox v. Mattox, 105 N.M. 479, 481, 734 P.2d 259, 261 (Ct. App. 1987) (“To value
13 unmatured pension benefits, the trial court must determine their present value.”);
14 Copeland, 91 N.M. at 413-14, 575 P.2d at 103-04 (“The cases are in agreement that
15 at the time of the divorce the court must place a value on the pension rights and
16 include it in the entire assets, then make a distribution of the assets equitably. . . . The
17 trial court should make a determination of the present value of the unmatured pension
18 benefits with a division of assets which includes this amount, or divide the pension on
19 a ‘pay as it comes in’ system.”).
9
1 If the district court concludes that insufficient evidence exists to assign a
2 present value under these circumstances, it must make a clear and supported finding
3 for its determination, and in its discretion determine and clearly support its decision
4 for the appropriate course of action for valuation and distribution under a “reserved
5 jurisdiction” method. Palmer v. Palmer, 2006-NMCA-112, ¶ 15, 140 N.M. 383, 142
6 P.3d 971 (stating that under the “reserved jurisdiction” method, “only the formula for
7 division is determined at the time of divorce” (internal quotation marks and citations
8 omitted)); Ruggles, 116 N.M. at 67, 860 P.2d at 197 (“One such occasion [where
9 deferred distribution should be employed] will arise when the court has no satisfactory
10 evidence upon which to make a finding of present value.”); 2.80.1600.10(A)(3)
11 NMAC (12/28/2001) (providing that the court order must “divide[] the community
12 interest in PERA retirement pensions or contributions . . . [including] the percentage
13 or dollar amount of each party’s interest in the gross pension as calculated at the time
14 of retirement”).
15 In making the foregoing determinations, the district court is entitled in its
16 discretion to rely upon evidence previously presented of the present day value of the
17 pension or, within its authority, request additional evidence to aid in its conclusion.
18 See Gilmore, 2010-NMCA-013, ¶ 52 (“We will not in this case attempt to provide
19 definite guidelines by which district courts in their mandated purpose to achieve an
20 equitable result might determine which formula or method of calculation to use in
10
1 dividing benefits when the parties have not agreed to a particular formula or
2 methodology.”).
3 Finally, we note that the district court ordered that the parties execute
4 a QDRO when Husband elects to retire. However, a QDRO is not
5 applicable to retirement benefits distributed by PERA. See Attorney
6 Instructions, Order Dividing PERA Retirement Benefits, available at
7 http://www.pera.state.nm.us/forms/AttyInstOrderDivPERABen.pdf. Rather, the
8 appropriate order to be entered pursuant to a division of PERA benefits in a divorce
9 proceeding is an “Order Dividing PERA Retirement Benefits” as authorized by
10 NMSA 1978, Sections 10-11-116 (1991) (amended 2010 and 2011), -130 (2005)
11 (amended 2011), -136 (1995) of the New Mexico Public Employees Retirement Act
12 and PERA Regulations 2.80.1600.1 to .50 NMAC (10/15/97) (amended 12/28/2001).
13 See 2.80.1600.10 NMAC (providing requirements for orders dividing retirement
14 benefits).
15 IV. CONCLUSION
16 The order of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded to the district
17 court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
19 ______________________________
20 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
11
1 WE CONCUR:
2 _________________________________
3 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge
4 _________________________________
5 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
12