## Facts

- Eileen Maslen (wife) and Holbrook Maslen (husband) married in January 1985.
- Holbrook was an airline pilot who was fully vested in two employer-provided retirement plans throughout the marriage:
  - A fixed-benefit (FB) defined-benefit plan paying a lifetime monthly benefit at retirement, funded entirely by the employer and calculated using Holbrook’s salary at retirement and months of participation.
  - A directed-account (DA) plan similar to an investment account, funded by the employer with monthly contributions equal to 9% of Holbrook’s monthly salary, with benefits based on the account’s accumulated value including investment gains or losses.
- Eileen filed for divorce in August 1985; the divorce was finalized in September 1987.
- The trial court (magistrate) found the only community assets were Holbrook’s interests in the two pension plans.
- For each plan, the magistrate calculated Holbrook’s accrued benefits as of the date of marriage and as of the date of divorce, treated the increase as the community portion, and awarded Eileen one-half of that community portion.
- The magistrate ordered Eileen’s share of the DA plan paid immediately as a lump sum and ordered Eileen’s share of the FB plan paid monthly by the plan administrator when Holbrook received benefits.
- The district court affirmed on intermediate appeal.
- Holbrook petitioned the Idaho Supreme Court for review, arguing the magistrate should have used the “time-rule” method to value the community share and should have ordered a lump-sum distribution (rather than deferred monthly payments) for Eileen’s share of the FB plan.

## Issues

1. Was the magistrate required to use the time-rule method to determine the community interest in Holbrook’s pension benefits, or could it use an accrued-benefit (increase-in-value) method?
2. Did the magistrate abuse its discretion by dividing the pension increases accrued between marriage and divorce as community property and awarding Eileen one-half?
3. Did the magistrate err in ordering Eileen’s share of the FB plan to be paid as monthly benefits at retirement rather than by a present lump-sum distribution?
4. Should attorney’s fees be awarded on appeal?

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court held that pension benefits earned during marriage are community property and the magistrate did not abuse its discretion by awarding Eileen one-half of the community portion of Holbrook’s pension benefits.
- The Court held the magistrate was not required to use the time-rule method and did not abuse its discretion by valuing the community portion as the increase in accrued benefits from marriage to divorce.
- The Court affirmed the division of the plans but remanded for the magistrate to allow Holbrook the option to satisfy Eileen’s share of the FB plan through a present lump-sum payment (if he chose to do so).
- The Court declined to award attorney’s fees on appeal because the appeal raised genuine issues for review.

## Legal Principles

- Vested retirement benefits are a property interest; the portion earned or accrued during marriage is community property subject to equitable division under Idaho community property law.
- Trial courts have broad discretion in identifying, valuing, and distributing community assets in divorce, and appellate review asks whether that discretion was abused.
- No single pension-valuation formula is mandatory in every case; a court may use a reasonable method that fairly measures what was acquired during the marriage, including an accrued-benefit method based on the change in plan value between marriage and divorce.
- Retirement interests are generally valued as of the date of divorce for purposes of property division.
- When feasible, property division should reduce continuing financial ties between former spouses; a court may structure pension distribution to allow a lump-sum buyout option rather than requiring long-term shared payment streams.
- Attorney’s fees on appeal are not awarded when the appeal is taken in good faith and presents legitimate questions.

## Conclusion

In *Maslen v. Maslen*, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed a magistrate’s decision to treat the increase in a spouse’s vested pension benefits between marriage and divorce as community property and to award the other spouse one-half of that increase, rejected the argument that the time-rule method was required, and remanded only to permit an optional lump-sum buyout of the wife’s share of the defined-benefit plan while denying attorney’s fees on appeal.


Maslen v. Maslen, 822 P.2d 982 (1991)