Fischbach v. Fischbach: Other Issues with Pension Benefits

Few areas reveal how the law often rubs up directly against certain unpleasant aspects of human nature than family law. In so many cases, litigants can spare themselves considerable headache – and financial stress – by simply taking a common sense, reasonable approach to a given situation. Of course, in reality, litigants often don’t take the reasonable approach – especially in the context of divorce. The case of Fischbach v. Fischbach is an excellent example of a case which could’ve been greatly simplified if one party had just taken the common sense approach. Let’s take a closer look at this important case.

Facts of the Case

The couple in this case were married for many years but ultimately decided to separate. Prior to their divorce, the couple developed and executed a separation agreement which included a section regarding property division. The section stated that the wife would receive a portion of the husband's pension benefits when he retired. This provision was approved in the final divorce judgment. When the husband retired at age 62, he failed to notify his wife, and instead simply began receiving regular pension payments. The wife found out three years later that her husband had retired early at age 65 and went to court to force him to share his pension benefits. The wife had assumed that the husband would retire at age 65, as is customary.

The husband argued that the wife should only receive retirement benefits starting at age 65, not receive any retroactive benefits from his early retirement. The husband used several legal tactics to try to quell the wife’s motion, but they were unsuccessful. The wife argued that the divorce judgment clearly stated that she should receive benefits at the time of retirement.

Outcome & Discussion

Ultimately, the wife prevailed as the court concluded that the husband simply failed to notify his wife. It was obvious that the husband had avoided notifying his wife because he simply wished to deprive her of benefits. The court stated that the pension benefits became shareable as soon as the husband retired, as opposed to when the wife discovered the retirement. The issue, therefore, was the precise time when the husband began accessing benefits, not the moment when the wife finally learned about the retirement. This is a good example of a case that could have been made simpler by hiring a good lawyer or by taking a more reasonable approach. Despite the evident fact that he had agreed to grant a portion of his retirement benefits "if, when, and as" he retired, the husband was forced to navigate a sophisticated set of legal obstacles. By concealing his retirement, the court correctly concluded that the only motive was personal gain. When someone behaves in that manner, that person is seldom, if ever, rewarded by a court.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

If you want to learn more, get in touch with one of the leading family law lawyers at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8543.

‍