Marriage of Crace v. Crace

I respectfully dissent and would reverse for the following reasons:

1. “Determination of whether a particular item of property is marital or nonmari-tal is a question of law * * *." Erdahl v. Erdahl, 384 N.W.2d 566, 568 (Minn.Ct.App.1986). Appellant claims his state trooper pension benefits are exempt from consideration as marital property in dissolution proceedings.

*882At the time this action commenced, Minn. Stat. § 352B.071 (Supp.1983) exempted state trooper benefits from process:

None of the moneys, annuities, or other benefits provided for in [chapter 352B] shall be assignable either in law or…