Legal Opinion

Milam v. Milam

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 15, 1988No. 884DC328PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s classification of plaintiffs military pension as separate property based upon its finding that it had not vested as of the date of separation. Marital property includes “all vested pension, retirement, and other deferred compensation rights, including military pensions eligible under the federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-20(b)(l) (1987). While our equitable distribution statute specifically refers to “vested” pension and retirement rights, the statute does not define the term “vested” and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In re the Marriage of GrubbSupreme Court of Colorado · 1987
  2. Seifert v. SeifertCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  3. Seifert v. SeifertSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Webb v. LaneAppellate Court of Illinois · 1991
  2. McCaskill v. Department of State TreasurerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
  3. McCaskill v. Department of State TreasurerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API