absent an express agreement between the parties to provide for support beyond the child’s eighteenth birthday, the Age of Majority Act precludes such a result
How later courts described this case
- absent an express agreement between the parties to provide for support beyond the child’s eighteenth birthday, the Age of Majority Act precludes such a result
- "[Wle do not foreclose the introduction of evidence tending to show that a particular individual is likely to have a longer or shorter life expectancy than is reflected by the statutory mortality tables or, indeed, any mortality table used to determine expected lifespan."
- two methods: (1) the present value method (lump sum distribution) and (2) the time rule method (deferred distribution)
- opinion by BRONSON, J.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*790 Beasley, J.
(concurring in result only). I concur in Judge Bronson’s result, but not necessarily in all he says. For example, he states:
"In this case, the court could defer distribution of any pension benefits until plaintiff begins to receive them. Such payments would resemble alimony, but would be considered the delayed distribution of marital assets. Whether such a method of distribution should be used in this case, or any case, rests within the trial court’s discretion.”
I am not yet prepared to rule out the possibility of solving the pension benefit problem in divorce cases within the framework of alimony provisions. Payments need not only "resemble” alimony, but perhaps in some cases such possible future retirement payments should be alimony. I would not limit the trial judge in how he goes about awarding defendant wife a more equitable share.