Answers to all your Minnesota Divorce Questions on Dividing Savings, Money, and Property

What are the different types of property in a Minnesota divorce and how are they divided?

There are two categories of property in Minnesota marital dissolution law – marital and nonmarital. The characterization of the property determines how the court may divide the property.

If property is marital, it is to be divided equitably without regard to marital misconduct pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1. An equitable division does not necessarily constitute an equal division – as discussed further below.

If property is nonmarital, it is usually awarded to the owner and is generally not considered in the overall property division. There may be exceptions to this rule: To prevent undue hardship, a court may award up to one-half of a spouse’s nonmarital property to the other spouse if it finds the award of marital property is inadequate. Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 2. Detailed findings are necessary to support such an allocation including: length of the marriage; any prior marriage of a party; age, heath, station, occupation, amount and sources of income; vocational skills; employability; estate; liabilities; needs; and, opportunity for future acquisition of capital assets and income of each party. Id.

What is the difference between marital property and non-marital property in Minnesota?

“Marital property” is defined as property, real or personal, including vested public or private pension plan benefits or rights, acquired by the parties, or either of them, to a dissolution at any time during the existence of the marriage relation between them. All property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage and before the valuation date is presumed to be marital property regardless of whether title is held individually or by the spouses in a form of co-ownership such as joint tenancy, tenancy in common, tenancy by the entirety, or community. See Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3b.

Each spouse shall be deemed to have a common ownership in marital property that vests not later than the time of entry of the decree in a proceeding for dissolution or annulment. The extent of the vested interest shall be determined and made final by the court pursuant to section 518.58. If a title interest in real property is held individually by only one spouse, the interest in the real property of the non-titled spouse is not subject to claims of creditors or judgment or tax liens until the time of entry of the decree awarding an interest to the non-titled spouse. Id. This is implemented with the valuation date and indemnification language.

The presumption of marital property is overcome by a showing that the property is nonmarital property. Id. Nonmarital property is defined as real or personal property acquired by gift by either spouse before, during, or after their marriage, which a) is acquired as a gift, bequest, devise or inheritance made by a third party to one but not the other spouse; b) is acquired before the marriage; c) is acquired in exchange for or is the increase in value of property which is described in a), b), d), or e); d) is acquired by a spouse after the valuation date; or e) is excluded by a valid antenuptial contract. Id. There may be property with both marital and nonmarital components.

How do you prove savings, money, or other property is non-marital in a Minnesota divorce?

The proponent of a nonmarital claim bears the burden of proof and must prove the necessary underlying facts by a preponderance of the evidence. See Kottke v. Kottke, 353 N.W.2d 633, 636 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), pet. for rev. denied, (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984); Wiegers v. Wiegers, 467 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).

The Minnesota Supreme Court defines the “preponderance of the evidence standard” as follows:

A fair preponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence. That is, to establish a fact by a fair preponderance of the evidence, the evidence must satisfy you that it is more reasonable, more probable, more credible that such fact exists than that the contrary exists. If the evidence is equally balanced on such issue, then the fact has not been established by a fair preponderance of the evidence. If the greater weight of evidence is against such fact, then also that fact has not been established by a fair preponderance of the evidence. But if in any appreciable degree there is greater weight in support of the claim of the party having the burden of proof, then that burden has been sustained and that fact has been established by a fair preponderance of the evidence. Netzer v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 238 Minn. 416 (1953).

The required documentation includes statements of value at the time of the marriage, throughout the marriage and as of the valuation date. If the property in question is commingled with any other property or fluctuates in value, all statements related to those transactions must also be produced. Ultimately, the tracing necessary to prove a nonmarital claim must persuade the trier of fact that the property in question is more likely than not nonmarital in nature.

Do I need exact documentation to prove that I owned this property before the marriage in my Minnesota divorce?

A strict tracing of a nonmarital interest is not required rather, “credible testimony otherwise unsupported by documentation can be sufficient to trace a non-marital asset.” See Doering v. Doering, 385 N.W.2d, 390-91 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).

What happens when marital and non-marital property get mixed together?

Typically, nonmarital assets lose their nonmarital character by having been merged with marital property, unless a party can show by a preponderance of evidence that the asset can be traced. See Swick v. Swick, 467 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Johnson v. Johnson, 388 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); Hafner v. Hafner, 406 N.W.2d 590, 593 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).

“When nonmarital and marital property are commingled, the nonmarital investment may lose that character unless it can be readily traced.” See Baker v. Baker, 753 N.W.2d 644 (Minn. 2008); Kottke v. Kottke, 353 N.W.2d 633, 636 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984); Wiegers v. Wiegers, 467 N.W.2d 342, 344 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).

Is income from non-marital assets considered marital property?

Income earned from a nonmarital asset is marital property. See Swick v. Swick, 467 N.W.2d 328 (Minn.App.1991); Linderman v. Linderman, 364 N.W.2d 872, 876–77 (Minn.App.1985). The Court has held this includes both farm rental income (Linderman at 877), investment income, interest earned on a nonmarital certificate of deposit (Swick at 331–32) and royalties and dividends paid on nonmarital stock (Moore v. Moore, 391 N.W.2d 42, 44 (Minn.App.1986).

How is real estate handled when determining marital vs. non-marital property?

The Supreme Court case, Schmitz v. Schmitz, contains the formula necessary to address appreciation allocated between marital and nonmarital interests where there have been both marital and nonmarital contributions to the property. 309 N.W.2d 748 (Minn. 1981). For example, if nonmarital funds were used to purchase a parcel of real estate, the Schmitz formula provides the method for determining the total nonmarital claim in the home at the time of the valuation date.

The formula is summarized as follows: the proportion the nonmarital net equity or contribution at the time of the marriage [or acquisition] bore to the value of the property at the time of marriage [or acquisition] multiplied by the value of the property as the date of separation [most often, the valuation date]. The remainder of equity increase is characterized as marital property. Id. Essentially this formula calculates the percentage of the asset that is nonmarital in nature.

In Antone v. Antone, the Court of Appeals first held that the Schmitz formula need not always be applied. 2001 WL 1356377 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). Then, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the Schmitz formula also applies to the determination of marital and nonmarital interests with appreciation of property acquired before the marriage where the mortgages were reduced during the marriage with marital income. Antone v. Antone, 645 N.W.2d 96 (Minn. 2002).

What extra proof is required for me to keep the gifts I am claiming as non-marital property?

The gift must be established by clear and convincing evidence, even in a dissolution context, and generally requires 1) donative intent; 2) delivery of the gift; and 3) absolute disposition of the property. McCulloch v. McCulloch, 435 N.W.2d 564, 568 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).

Am I going to have to share my personal injury settlement money in my Minnesota divorce?

If a party receives personal injury recovery, that party “must produce demonstrable proof that the amount of recovery was awarded for his personal injuries and not for replacement of property marital in nature.” Van de Loo v. Van de Loo, 346 N.W.2d 173 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). Absent such proof, the monies recovered for any injury occurring during the marriage will be treated as marital property. If the monies received are determined to be an exchange or a replacement for property acquired before the marriage, i.e. the person’s good health, it is nonmarital property. If the monies recovered replace property acquired during the marriage or which would have been acquired during the marriage, i.e. replacement of lost wages, it is marital property. Id.

In the unpublished decision of Halvorson v. Halvorson, wife recovered a personal injury settlement that she claimed was nonmarital. She lost her attempt to preserve the value of the settlement as a nonmarital asset because the funds were deposited into the parties’ joint account and wife did “not articulate any property interest acquired in exchange for the settlement proceeds.” 2000 WL 249354 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).

I get income from property that I owned before the marriage – how is that going to be treated in divorce?

Income received from nonmarital property is deemed marital property. While “appreciation is intrinsic to the asset itself, income is a product of the asset.” Gottsacker v. Gottsacker, 664 N.W.2d 848, 855 (Minn. 2003) (citing Swick, 467 N.W.2d at 332). Appreciation of an asset can only be realized when the asset is sold or distributed, but interest is available as a liquid asset during the marriage in a manner analogous to rental income, cash dividends, or stock proceeds. Id.

Thus, any assets acquired with income generated by a nonmarital asset are also considered marital property divisible upon dissolution. See Gottsacker v. Gottsacker, 664 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 2003); Swick v. Swick, 467 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Pearson v. Pearson, 363 N.W.2d 337 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985); and Moore v. Moore, 391 N.W.2d 42 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).

Interest earned on a nonmarital asset is “income” and thus, marital property. “When attributing growth to market forces [i.e. passive appreciation], courts distinguish between appreciation and income, and determine whether the growth represents realized or unrealized gain. White v. White, 521 N.W.2d 874, 878 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994 (citing Swick, 467 N.W.2d at 332).

What is ‘passive appreciation’ and how does it affect non-marital property?

Passive appreciation of nonmarital property does not become marital property. This includes simple appreciation of profit-sharing plans, increase in stock values, and increases in real property values unrelated to management efforts or improvements. See Swick v. Swick, 467 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Campion v. Campion, 385 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); Johnson v. Johnson, 388 N.W.2d 47 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 379 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).

“The Supreme Court has explained that stock splits are the result of market forces and the corresponding increases in the stock’s value remain nonmarital. Nardini v. Nardini, 414. N.W.2d 184, 194 (Minn. 1987).” Prahl v. Prahl, 627 N.W.2d 698 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).

What is ‘active appreciation’ and when does it become marital property?

Courts distinguish between “active” and “passive” appreciation, finding that increases in value due to “active” appreciation are marital in nature. In White v. White, the Court found that increases in value of nonmarital property during the marriage attributable to “active appreciation” are marital property. 521 N.W.2d 874 (Minn Ct. App. 1994). “Active” appreciation includes efforts of one or both spouses towards an increase in value, whether by financial investment, labor, or entrepreneurial decision making. The Court reasons that such actions are made by the marital entity and thus, should be considered marital property. Id.

It can become especially difficult to trace a nonmarital interest when the increase in value relates to both income earned and nonmarital appreciation. As discussed in Baker on remand from the Supreme Court, when determining the nonmarital appreciation of an account versus the marital income earned, it is not necessary to identify exactly which dollars are marital and nonmarital as long as the number of dollars identified as marital and nonmarital are adequately supported by the record. 2008 WL 5135117 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008); see also Nash v. Nash, 388 N.W.2d 777, 781 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). Such tracing does not require one to produce the serial numbers of the dollar bills used. Id.

How does my marital effort to improve the value of our home, savings, and other property affect the value of my non-marital property?

Insofar as marital effort precipitated the increase in the value of the nonmarital property, such increase is marital. While this issue has been the subject of significant debate in the appellate courts, the Minnesota Supreme Court has concluded:

Central to the classification of appreciation of nonmarital property as martial or nonmarital is the principle that effort expended to generate property during the marriage – that is, “marital effort” – should benefit both parties rather than one of the parties to the exclusion of the other. In all of the cases where we have held appreciation of nonmarital property to be marital, significant effort that otherwise could have been devoted to the generation of marital property was diverted and applied toward nonmarital property instead.

Baker v. Baker, 753 N.W.2d 644 (Minn. 2008). Indeed, the Supreme Court pronounced that

the single test for whether appreciation in the value of nonmarital property is marital or nonmarital is the extent to which marital effort – the financial or nonfinancial efforts of one or both spouses during the marriage – generated the increase.

Id. The Baker holding has concluded a 20-year debate as to the role of marital effort in valuing nonmarital property. Avoid the distraction of whether the increase is “active” or “passive” and focus on whether it was caused by marital effort.

What role does the court play in ensuring fairness in dividing property and money during divorce?

In dissolution cases, the court sits as a third party, representing the citizens of the State of Minnesota to see that a fair property distribution is made. Maranda v. Maranda, 449 N.W.2d 158, 165 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989); Karon v. Karon, 435 N.W.2d 501, 503 (Minn. 1989).

For Karon waiver, it is not the parties to the stipulation who have divested the court of ability to relitigate the issue of maintenance. The court had the authority to refuse to accept the terms of the stipulation in part or in toto. The trial court has a duty to protect the interests of both parties and all the citizens of the state to ensure that the stipulation is fair and reasonable to all. Karon v. Karon, 435 N.W.2d 501, 503 (Minn. 1989).

What does equitable distribution mean in Minnesota divorce? Does that mean equal?

In Minnesota, there is a conclusive presumption that each spouse made a substantial contribution to the acquisition of income and property while they were living together as husband and wife. Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1. Further, the Court is required to make a just and equitable division of the marital property. Id. The implementation of this division requires the Court to consider: the contribution of each in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation or appreciation in the amount or value of the marital property, as well as the contribution of a spouse as a homemaker. Id.

Is equitable distribution the same as equal distribution? The short answer is: not necessarily. A “just and equitable” division is not necessarily an equal division. See Nazar v. Nazar, 505 N.W.2d 628 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) (distribution of marital property need not be mathematically equal); Crosby v. Crosby, 587 N.W.2d 292 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998) (unequal division of marital property in favor of wife); Stassen v. Stassen, 351 N.W.2d 20 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) (unequal division of marital estate in part based on Husband’s failure to contribute to the marriage). Moreover, a court is not required to determine that a contribution which is substantial is equal. Id. While equitable does not necessarily mean equal, many cases include approximately equal divisions of marital property.

When can courts divide property unequally in Minnesota divorce?

Where both parties are in good financial standing and there are no extenuating circumstances, an equal distribution of property is in fact an equitable distribution. Reynolds v. Reynolds, 498 N.W.2d 266, 270 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993); Ellesmere v. Ellesmere, 359 N.W.2d 48, 51 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).

The parties’ respective contributions to the acquisition of marital property impact the division of property. Where both parties have contributed to the effort, an equal division of marital property is appropriate. See Miller v. Miller, 352 N.W.2d 738 (Minn. 1984); Kaste v. Kaste, 399 N.W.2d, 128 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). Conversely, where one party significantly contributed to the acquisition of marital property, such efforts may warrant an unequal division of such property. See McKee-Johnson v. Johnson, 429 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988); McCormick v. McCormick, No. A07-1638, 2008 WL 4479819 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2008).

Minnesota law does not support a complete denial of marital property to one party. See Zeimer v. Zeimer, 386, N.W.2d 348 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). While there is no definitive statement regarding an acceptable unequal division of marital property, the appellate courts have demonstrated a willingness to uphold an unequal property division where it does not exceed a 66/33% division. Indeed, the following divisions have been affirmed as appropriate and within the court’s discretion: 58%/42%; 60%/40%; 63%/37%. See McCormick v. McCormick, No. A07-1638, 2008 WL 4470819 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2008); (Nemitz v. Nemitz, 376 N.W.2d 243, 248 (Minn. App. 1985) review denied (Minn. Dec. 30, 1985); Kramer v. Kramer, 372 N.W.2d 364, 367 (Minn. App. 1985); Olness v. Olness, 364 N.W.2d 912, 914 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985); Erdahl v. Erdahl, 384 N.W.2d 566 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); Nolan v. Nolan, 354 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984); Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 358 N.W.2d 76 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984); Gosse v. Gosse, 1998 WL 372803 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998); Sheridan v. Sheridan, 1994 WL 586958 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).

What date will be used to value our assets in my Minnesota divorce?

Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1 instructs trial courts to:

. . . value marital assets for purposes of division between the parties as of the date of the initially scheduled prehearing settlement conference, unless a different date is agreed upon by the parties, or unless the court makes specific findings that another date of valuation is fair and equitable.

In most Minnesota court districts, the first pretrial settlement conference is the statutory valuation date. However, in some districts, the Initial Case Management Conference is the statutory valuation date. Depending on which “initially scheduled prehearing settlement conference” is deemed as the statutory valuation date, these dates (and associated values) may vary quite considerably.

The Court has broad discretion in setting a valuation date. If the Court does not use the statutory valuation date, it must make specific findings explaining the rationale. Grigsby v. Grigsby, 648 N.W.2d 716 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002); Desrosier v. Desrosier, 551 N.W.2d 507, 510 (Minn. Ct. App.1996).

After determining the correct valuation date, the court can make changes to the value of assets if it determines there has been a substantial change in the value. Id. Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1 provides:

If there is a substantial change in value of an asset between the date of valuation and the final distribution, the court may adjust the valuation of that asset as necessary to effect an equitable distribution. (emphasis added).

A “substantial change in value” applies an increase or decrease in the value of an asset(s). See In re Bender, 671 N.W.2d 602, 605 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) (a current date of valuation was used for investment accounts awarded to Wife because market forces caused a substantial decrease in value ($31,331) from the parties’ stipulated date of valuation to the date of distribution); Fastner v. Fastner, 427 N.W.2d 691, 699 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) (a current date of valuation was used due to stock prices undergoing a drastic change ($83 per share at trial versus $54 per share when Judgment and Decree was issued)); In contrast, see Shea v. Shea, 2007 WL 446982 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007) (a current date of valuation was used for investment accounts awarded to Husband to capture the substantial increase in value to the accounts).

What is this marital balance sheet that my divorce lawyer keeps talking about?

The purpose of the balance sheet is to summarize the value, distribution and division the marital estate. Its basic purpose is to illustrate what each party is awarded as part of the divorce. The balance sheet also identifies any nonmarital claims owned by either party and allocates those ownership interests as part of the divorce.

The balance sheet is best accomplished by electronic spreadsheet providing the opportunity to reallocate values, distribution and division. It is good practice to assemble a working balance sheet at the commencement of the case based upon your own client’s information and documentation and work through additional versions of the balance sheet has discovery is completed and negotiations ensue. If settlement efforts are unsuccessful, the balance sheet and supporting documentation (for each line item) is the evidence that will be submitted to the Court supporting your client’s property division proposal.

Generally, the balance sheet is most efficiently organized by assembling the assets and debts into similarly characterized groups. These categories may include: cash/securities; children’s accounts; retirement assets; life insurance; real estate; business interests; vehicles; other assets; and, liabilities. Where a debt correlates directly to an asset, those are most efficiently grouped together, i.e. home/mortgage; car/car loan, etc. It is important to include detailed identification information within the balance sheet, i.e., name and account number of asset/debt; owner of asset/debt; value/balance; any nonmarital value/balance; allocation; source (statement, appraisal, etc.) and any other helpful notes such as additional detail about the source or competing values. In addition, utilize a numbering system so that the supporting documentation for each entry can be easily accessed at mediation or trial.

The balance sheet should address each and every asset and debt within the marital estate. This many times is more far reaching than clients may initially think. This analysis will require clients to consider: property s/he owns; debts s/he owes; belongings within the home, cabin or other property; items in safe deposit boxes or storage units; items that may belong to one spouse and not the other (there may still be a marital interest); essentially, everything.

Is the money I am going to get in the divorce going to be taxed?

Be cognizant of the tax impact of various assets as they are organized within the balance sheet. For example, Roth IRAs are a pretax asset and therefore should be included in a section of the balance sheet that recognizes the pre-tax status (i.e. not with Traditional IRAs that will have a future tax impact). Oftentimes, the marital portion of tax pregnant assets (i.e. 401(k), Traditional IRAs will be equalized so that both parties leave the marriage with an equal amount of such assets. It is important to understand that it is within the court’s discretion to consider the tax consequences of its marital property award, even if the taxable event is not required by or not likely to occur within a short time after dissolution. The court may make an informed judgment as to the probable tax liability if it has a reasonable and supportable basis. See Maurer v. Maurer, 623 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. 2001).

As to tax basis considerations in property division, stocks, rental real estate and other assets may have capital gains or losses associated with them that need to be appropriately considered in a property division.

How are children’s assets handled in divorce property division?

These should be identified as part of a complete disclosure. While either party should not be charged for these assets as they belong to the children, careful consideration should be paid to how the assets will be treated (i.e., both parties will have access to the statements; withdrawals are subject to discussion and agreement; etc.).

When do assets need professional valuations in divorce?

Various assets may require an expert for valuation purposes including but not limited to real estate, business interests, pensions, deferred compensation, etc. These valuations will require additional time and can be referenced within the balance sheet as “TBD” pending further information.

How are debts divided in Minnesota divorce?

Apportionment of marital debt is treated as a property division. Justis v. Justis, 384 N.W.2d 885, 889 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986), review denied (Minn. May 29, 1986); Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 358 N.W.2d 76, 80 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984); Filkins v. Filkins, 347 N.W.2d 526, 529 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) (though the court held that such apportionment is not necessarily required depending on the facts and circumstances of the case). But debts paid during the marriage cannot be apportioned because there is no debt to apportion. Freking v. Freking, 479 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).

What if my spouse purposely spent all of our money so I don’t get any of it in the divorce?

A party may seek reimbursement for a spouse’s dissipation of marital assets. See Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1a. Spouses owe to one another a fiduciary duty. During the pendency of a dissolution proceeding, or in contemplation of commencing a marital dissolution proceeding, each spouse owes a fiduciary duty to the other to preserve marital assets. If the court finds one spouse “transferred, encumbered, concealed, or disposed of marital assets except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life” without the consent of the other, the court shall compensate the other party by “placing both parties in the same position that they would have been in had the transfer, encumbrance, concealment, or disposal not occurred.” Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1(a).

The burden of proving dissipation is on the party claiming that dissipation occurred. See Griepp v. Griepp 381 N.W.2d 865, 869 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (finding that if the precise amount claimed to be dissipated is not clearly demonstrated, the record is insufficient to establish dissipation). The court may “charge” an individual found to have dissipated or depleted martial resources. See Carrick v. Carrick, 560 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997) (significant funds spent on gambling constituted dissipation); Lynch v. Lynch, 411 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) (cash advance appropriately charged to party who dissipated assets); Holder v. Holder, 403 N.W.2d 269 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) (party must be charged for depletion of savings account); Justis v. Justis, 384 N.W.2d 885 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (husband disposal of funds from daughter’s trust account immediately prior to divorce must be considered in property division). Dissipation claims should be identified as line-items within the balance sheet.

What types of income can be divided as property in divorce?

Minnesota Appellate Courts have interpreted the “expansive” definition of marital property under Minn. Stat. § 518.54, see Elliott v. Elliot, 274 N.W.2d 75 (Minn. 1978), as including several forms of future income streams of one party, as follows:

i. Nonvested, Unmatured Pension Rights. In Janssen v. Janssen, 331 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. 1982), the Minnesota Supreme Court considered “whether a nonvested, unmatured pension [of one of the parties] is marital property which can be divided in a marital dissolution proceeding.” The court determined that such a pension interest can be property for dissolution purposes because (a) the employed spouse had, during the marriage, entered a pension contract under which that spouse acquired certain rights, albeit contingent, to benefits; and (b) the contractual nature of the right to receive benefits under the pension meant that the employed spouse had more than a mere expectancy in pension benefits, and therefore