Harvey v. Harvey

OPINION

GARRARD, Judge.

Richard Harvey (“Husband”) appeals the trial court’s dissolution decree, claiming that the trial court’s findings do not support its judgment, that Husband’s early retirement supplemental benefits (“supplemental benefits”) should not have been considered marital property subject to division, that the trial court erred by relying on unisex mortality tables, and that the trial court should have used Husband’s expert’s fair market valuation of Husband’s pension.

We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

FACTS

Husband and Margaret Harvey (“Wife”) were married on March 28,…