# Cochran v. Cochran

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · July 21, 2009 · 198 N.C. App. 224

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9852896

## Case

- **Full name:** NANCY COCHRAN, Plaintiff v. ROBERT L. COCHRAN, Defendant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** July 21, 2009
- **Citations:** 198 N.C. App. 224; 679 S.E.2d 469; 2009 N.C. App. LEXIS 1161
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wynn
- **Judges:** Geer, Ervin, Wynn
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9852896

## Opinion text

WYNN, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority’s holding vacating the trial court’s equitable distribution order and remanding for further proceedings. However, I write separately to discourage deviation from the Bishop methodology, absent a high level of scrutiny and exacting analysis of the type demonstrated in today’s opinion.
In Bishop, this Court reviewed different valuation methods developed by “accountants and actuaries and accepted by the courts” and thoughtfully crafted a five-step approach for valuating defined benefit plans. Bishop, 113 N.C. App. at 730, 440 S.E.2d at 595. Specifically, the second step of the “Bishop method” requires the trial court to “determine the employee-spouse’s life expectancy as of the date of separation and use this figure to ascertain the probable number of months the employee-spouse will receive benefits under the plan.” Bishop, 113 N.C. App. at 731, 440 S.E.2d at 595-96.
In this case, the trial court made the following finding regarding the valuation of Mr. Cochran’s pension plan:
7. . . . The court used the following relevant factors when determining the valuation of the plan. The Defendant participant was bom on July 26,1957 and his age at the date of separation was 48.03 years. The Defendant’s date of employment, in regards to this plan, was May 28, 1988. As of the date of separation the Defendant has been a participant in the plan for 17.1287 years and was still employed. The earliest retirement age under the plan is 50 years therefore the years to earliest retirement as of the date of separation is 1.97 years. The unreduced monthly benefit as of the date of separation was $1,270. The reduced benefit at earliest retirement is $1016. . . . Using the 94 Group Annuity Reserving Table, which the court finds is an appropriate method of determining life expectancy the court finds that the actuarial present value of the defined benefit plan of $1,016.12 per month beginning on the earliest retirement date of July 25, 2007 is $215,225. . . .
The evidence presented at trial and the resulting findings of fact indicate that, rather than determining a life expectancy and number of *241 probable months that Mr. Cochran would receive benefits as required by Bishop, the trial court adopted the alternative valuation method presented by Plaintiff’s expert, Mr. Shriner. By his own admission, Mr. Shriner testified that he did not determine a life expectancy for Mr. Cochran that could be expressed as a number of years. He explained that, rather than using a static calculation of “life expectancy” based on averages, he used actuarial math to determine the probability of mortality. Further, neither the trial court’s findings nor Mr. Shriner’s testimony offered a probable number of months that Mr. Cochran would receive benefits from his pension plan. Thus, the method used in this case was not the specific method approved by Bishop.
Nonetheless, I agree that the method employed by Mr. Shriner, adopted by the trial court, and affirmed by our decision today, was an alternate method that was consistent with Bishop. Yet, while it does appear to be reasonable not to be “frozen in 1994[,]” the method prescribed by Bishop remains valid. Because “consistency in valuation methods is important,” it would be prudent for our trial courts to weigh with great care any efforts to deviate from the specific method prescribed in Bishop. Bishop, 113 N.C. App. at 731, 440 S.E.2d at 595.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9852896. Public record. Not legal advice.