Cited by

§ 407(a); ¶ 5 (2000), as amended (Oct.

§ 407(a); ¶ 10 (App. 2005); ¶ 5 (2000).

on, arguing (i) the connection between Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Harrian is unknown; (ii) Wife's share of the PSPRS should be valued at maturity, –83 (1986); (iii) the QDRO improperly uses the "time-rule"; (iv) the QDRO does not consider social-security offsets and an offset should be applied to Wife's community interest, ¶¶ 7–10 (2000); and (v) the Decree did not award Wife's community interest to her estate.

¶17 Husband argues the QDRO failed to include an equitable adjustment in the allocation of his pension benefits to account for wife’s ¶¶ 9, 11 (2000).

1Hours after the court entered the orders submitted by Wife, Husband filed a

¶ 5 (2000) (citing 42 U.S.C.

one spouse participated in a retirement plan in which a portion of his retirement contributions were in lieu of Social Security contributions.

¶10 Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 25- 318(A), the superior court must divide all community property in a dissolution proceeding “equitably, though not necessarily in kind.” “The statute requires a substantially equal distribution of community assets in the absence of a compelling reason to the contrary.” ¶ 7 (2000).

§ 25-318 (2017), which requires “a substantially equal distribution of community assets in the absence of a compelling reason to the contrary.” ¶ 7

However, P.3d 1046 (2000), in the 2015 order allocating Wife’s pension.

¶ 5 (2000) (explaining that federal law prohibits Social Security benefits from being divided by state courts upon dissolution).

¶8 , , 1048 *539 (2000) (citing Toth, 190 Ariz. at 221 , 946 P.2d at 903 ).

407(a) (1998) (federal law prohibits the transfer or assignment of rights to Social Security benefits); , *378 108, ¶ 10, (citations omitted) (state law prohibits the division of Social Security as community property); ¶ 5 , (citation omitted).

We also decide that the equitable exemption from division as community property of a portion of a spouse’s pension benefits, recognized by our supreme court in Kelly v. Kelly, 198 Ariz, 307, may be applicable to David’s pension benefits.