Cited by

See, (“[I]t is well settled in Arizona and elsewhere that pension rights, whether vested or non-vested, are community property insofar as the rights were acquired during [the] marriage[.]”); (rejecting “the proposition that an employee has no more than a mere ‘expectancy’ prior to the maturation of his pension rights,” and citing with approval case law holding that “the 12 HOWIE v. HOWIE Decision of

¶17 ”[T]he community has an interest in the property earned during the marriage.” Brebaugh, 211 Ariz. at 98, ¶ 7; (holding that to the extent a spouse acquires unvested pension benefits from community efforts, that property right is divisible upon dissolution).

The proposed QDRO employed the "time rule" (months as a member of the PSPRS plan while married ÷ total months as a member of the PSPRS plan multiplied by 50% = Wife's portion) to calculate the community portion of the PSPRS plan.

DISCUSSION ¶9 Without challenging the determination that Fieszel and Webb operated as employees rather than independent contractors, (“The failure to raise an issue .

(noting that an issue not raised “at the trial level” has been waived).

¶22 An employee, and thereby the community, acquires “a property right in unvested pension benefits” and “to the extent that such a property right is earned through community effort, it is properly divisible by the court upon dissolution of the marriage.”

Polanco, 214 Ariz. at 492, ¶ 6 n.2.

Orfaly v. Tucson Symphony Soc’y, ¶ 15 (App. 2004) ().

of Supervisors of Pima Cnty., ); (“Because a trial court and opposing counsel should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised

(“The failure to raise an issue .

(“The failure to raise an issue .

See ARCAP 13(a)(7); (“The failure to raise an issue .

(“The failure to raise an issue .

(“The failure to raise an issue .

a spouse argued that as long as he had not yet retired, his pension was a "mere 'expectancy'" rather than a property right subject to equitable division in his dissolution.

See, e.g., Van Loan v. Van Loan , , 274, , 216 (1977).

See, (“[F]ailure to raise an issue either at the trial level or in briefs on appeal constitutes a waiver of the issue.”).

See Orfaly v. Tucson Symphony Soc’y, ¶ 15 (App. 2004) ().

(finding “[t]he failure to raise an issue either at the trial level or in briefs on appeal constitutes a waiver of the issue”) (citation omitted); ¶ 34 (App. 2007).

See Van Loan v. Van Loan , , 274, , 216 (1977).