## Facts

- Nancy E. Ruggles (nonemployee spouse) and Joseph A. Ruggles (employee spouse) married in 1959.
- During the marriage, Joseph accrued retirement benefits through his employer.
- At dissolution, Joseph’s pension was fully vested and matured: he was eligible to retire and receive benefits but had not elected to retire.
- In January 1988, the parties executed a marital settlement agreement recognizing Nancy’s community interest in the pension but not specifying when or how her share would be paid.
- The trial court treated the agreement as unambiguous and ordered Joseph to pay Nancy monthly amounts equal to one-half of what Joseph would receive if he retired immediately, reasoning delay reduced the present value of the pension.

## Issues

1. Whether a nonemployee spouse’s community interest in fully vested and matured retirement benefits must be divided only on a reserved-jurisdiction “pay as it comes in” basis.
2. Whether a court may instead order immediate distribution of the nonemployee spouse’s share at dissolution (by lump sum or an equivalent).
3. Whether prior language suggesting a mandatory “pay as it comes in” approach should be treated as nonbinding and limited or withdrawn.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, which had required a “pay as it comes in” division until the employee spouse actually retired.
- The Court held that when retirement benefits are vested and matured, the nonemployee spouse’s community share should ordinarily be distributed immediately at dissolution, preferably as a lump sum or equivalent.
- The Court withdrew prior broad language that had been read to mandate pay-as-received division in all cases.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with immediate-distribution principles, including valuation and implementation details.

## Legal Principles

- Community property division generally favors placing each spouse in immediate and present control of an equal share of community assets at dissolution when practicable.
- For vested and matured retirement benefits, the community interest is sufficiently definite to value and divide as a present asset at divorce.
- A reserved-jurisdiction “pay as it comes in” approach is not mandatory for vested and matured plans and may be rejected when it creates prolonged post-divorce financial entanglement or unfairly shifts timing and value control to the employee spouse.
- Present-value division may be supported by expert and actuarial evidence, and implemented through a lump sum, property offset, or structured payments approximating immediate distribution.

## Conclusion

The court held that vested, matured pension benefits should generally be divided through immediate distribution at divorce, rejected a rigid pay-as-received requirement, and remanded for valuation and implementation consistent with community property norms favoring equal, present control.


Ruggles v. Ruggles, 116 N.M. 52, 860 P.2d 182 (N.M. 1993)