## Facts

- Barbara A. Irwin (Wife) and Charles Douglas Irwin (Husband) were married for almost thirty years, separated in August 1988, and Wife filed for divorce in January 1989.
- Husband worked as a professor at Eastern New Mexico University and participated in the New Mexico Educational Retirement Board (ERB) plan, earning 26.92 years of educational retirement credit during marriage.
- The trial court found the retirement benefits were entirely community property and should be equally divided.
- In March 1989, before property division, Husband elected a single-life benefit under the ERB plan after representing himself as unmarried and without Wife’s consent; the election provided Husband a monthly benefit during his life with no continuing survivor benefit payable after his death (beyond a minimal residual).
- Wife sought protection of the community’s interest in the retirement plan, including survivorship rights; ERB intervened based on its interest in the division and administration of educational retirement benefits.
- The trial court entered an interim dissolution order reserving jurisdiction over property division, then later entered findings and orders dividing property and debts, including retirement-related provisions.
- Husband appealed the division of community property and debts, focusing on the alleged inequality of the apportionment and the handling of survivor benefits under the ERB plan.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court’s division of the community estate was substantively equal as required by New Mexico community-property law.
2. Whether the trial court erred by failing to properly value and apportion the survivor-benefit provisions of Husband’s ERB retirement plan, including the effect of Husband’s unilateral single-life election.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s community-property division and remanded.
- The court held the trial court did not correctly value and apportion the community interest in the retirement plan’s survivor benefits.
- Because the survivorship component and the effect of Husband’s election were not properly addressed, the overall property division did not achieve an equal division in substance.

## Legal Principles

- Retirement benefits earned during marriage are community property, and the community interest includes survivor benefits and optional forms of payment incident to the plan.
- When a plan offers benefit options with different economic values (e.g., single-life versus survivorship forms), a court must value and allocate those rights to effect an equal division of the community asset.
- A spouse may not unilaterally impair or defeat the other spouse’s community interest in retirement benefits through an election made without consent (particularly where supported by misrepresentation); the resulting loss must be accounted for through compensation or an adjusting property award.
- “Equal division” requires attention to the economic consequences of the orders, not merely a formal statement of 50-50 allocation.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals required trial courts to treat pension survivor options as divisible community property, to account for the economic impact of a spouse’s unilateral retirement election that reduces survivorship rights, and to adjust the property division to achieve substantive equality.


Irwin v. Irwin, 910 P.2d 342 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995)