## Facts

- David F. Thomson and Marjorie W. Thomson married in 1982 and permanently separated on December 31, 2004.
- Their August 9, 2006 divorce decree incorporated a mediated property settlement agreement.
- A key marital asset was David’s defined-benefit Alaska Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) pension.
- The settlement used a present-value calculation based on a then-current benefit projection tied to David’s salary information.
- The settlement and accompanying QDRO awarded Marjorie 46.96% of the marital portion of David’s PERS benefit.
- In 2014, David obtained a new PERS projection showing an expected benefit substantially higher than the 2006 projection.
- David moved to amend the QDRO to require using the salary/projection underlying the 2006 valuation; Marjorie opposed, asserting the default method applies absent explicit contrary language.

## Issues

1. Whether the 2006 settlement agreement and QDRO contained clear, specific language requiring Marjorie’s share of David’s defined-benefit PERS pension to be calculated using 2006 salary/projection figures rather than salary at retirement.
2. Whether, absent such clear language, the superior court could amend the QDRO years later to impose a cap or fixed historical valuation method.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s order denying David’s motion to amend the QDRO.
- The court held the settlement agreement and QDRO did not clearly require use of the earlier salary data used in the 2006 present-value analysis.
- Because the documents lacked the necessary clear language, the default rule applied: the defined-benefit share is calculated using the employee’s salary at retirement.

## Legal Principles

- A property settlement agreement incorporated into a divorce decree is interpreted as a contract under ordinary contract-interpretation rules.
- If contract language is unambiguous, courts determine its meaning as a matter of law and do not add unstated terms or rely on extrinsic evidence to rewrite the bargain.
- For defined-benefit pensions, any departure from the ordinary salary-at-retirement method must be stated with clear, specific language in the settlement agreement or order.
- Courts favor finality in property divisions; later changes in pension projections do not justify substantive modification of a QDRO absent clear contractual or decretal language requiring a different valuation method.

## Conclusion

The court refused to modify the QDRO because the divorce settlement and order did not expressly fix the pension division to 2006 salary or projection figures; absent that clear directive, Alaska’s default salary-at-retirement methodology controlled.


Thomson v. Thomson, 394 P.3d 604 (Alaska 2017)