## Facts

- Oliver W. Rolfe and Beverly C. Rolfe married in 1968 and their marriage was dissolved in 1983; they had two minor sons.
- In the dissolution, the district court awarded Oliver sole custody of the children and granted Beverly supervised visitation.
- Oliver was a tenured professor at the University of Montana and participated in the Montana Teachers’ Retirement System through his university employment.
- Beverly had been a homemaker for much of the marriage and later worked for modest wages; the district court considered evidence about her limited current income and realistic employment options in the local labor market.
- After an earlier appeal and remand concerning property distribution, the district court took additional evidence regarding valuation of Oliver’s retirement benefits.
- The district court divided Oliver’s retirement benefits using a time-rule (service-based) formula that awarded Beverly a proportional share of each pension payment if and when Oliver receives it, rather than fixing the pension’s value solely by contributions as of the dissolution date.
- The district court also denied Oliver’s request that Beverly be ordered to pay child support.
- Oliver appealed, arguing (1) the time-rule method improperly gave Beverly access to his post-dissolution pension contributions (which he characterized as nonmarital property), (2) the method failed to properly apportion the marital estate, and (3) the order effectively constrained him to remain employed so that benefits would be paid.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred or abused its discretion by denying Oliver’s request for child support from Beverly.
2. Whether the district court erred in valuing and dividing Oliver’s retirement benefits by using a time-rule, formula-based allocation of payments as received rather than limiting valuation to contributions as of the dissolution date.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of child support.
- The Court affirmed the district court’s valuation and division of Oliver’s retirement benefits using a time-rule formula payable as benefits are received.
- The Court rejected Oliver’s objections that the time-rule method improperly awarded Beverly nonmarital post-dissolution contributions or unlawfully forced him to remain employed.

## Legal Principles

- Child support determinations are committed to the district court’s discretion and will be upheld when supported by substantial evidence and not an abuse of discretion.
- In deciding support, a court may evaluate actual and realistically attainable earning capacity in light of local job conditions, rather than assuming higher income based on speculation.
- Retirement and pension benefits accrued during marriage are marital property subject to equitable distribution in dissolution proceedings.
- A court may equitably divide a defined-benefit pension using a time-rule (service fraction) that allocates to the nonemployee spouse a proportional share of each payment when paid, reflecting the portion earned during the marriage.
- Use of a time-rule allocation does not grant the nonemployee spouse ownership of the employee’s separate property; it is a method for measuring and distributing the marital component of a benefit that is paid in the future.

## Conclusion

Rolfe v. Rolfe holds that the district court acted within its discretion in denying child support where the evidence supported limited ability to pay, and that a time-rule formula distributing a proportional share of a university employee’s pension “as received” is a proper way to divide the marital portion of retirement benefits despite objections focused on post-dissolution contributions and future employment choices.


Rolfe v. Rolfe, 766 P.2d 223 (1988)