VICTORIA JEAN FIFER V TIMOTHY KENNETH FIFER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
VICTORIA JEAN FIFER,
UNPUBLISHED
September 12, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 216594
Washtenaw Circuit Court
LC No. 97-009500-DM
TIMOTHY KENNETH FIFER,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Gribbs and Griffin, JJ.
GRIFFIN, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with and join the majority’s decision affirming the trial court’s award of alimony.
However, I respectfully dissent from the reversal and remand regarding the setoff of the stipulated
present value of plaintiff’s anticipated social security benefits against defendant’s pension.
At trial, plaintiff introduced into evidence an actuarial opinion regarding the present value of
plaintiff’s anticipated social security benefits:
Mr. Whall (plaintiff’s counsel): Plaintiff will offer the two actuarial projections
of both present money value of Mr. Fifer’s interest in the retirement fund and the
present money value of Mrs. Fifer’s Social Security. And I believe it’s stipulated to by
counsel.
Mr. Daniels (defense counsel): That’s correct, your Honor.
The Court: It’s admitted. Thank you, Counsel. (at 2:22 p.m., PX 1 and PX 2
admitted.)
The Court: All right. Exhibit 1, then, is the present value of Social Security
benefits of Mrs. Fifer. Exhibit 2 is the present value of retirement benefits of Mr. Fifer.
Mr. Whall: Your Honor, I believe we have covered all of the items which the
parties have agreed to as the property settlement.
-1
In fashioning an equitable property division, the Honorable John N. Kirkendall took into
consideration the stipulated present values of both defendant’s pension benefits and plaintiff’s
anticipated social security:
The court agrees with Mr. Fifer [defendant] that the social security income of
his wife [plaintiff] should be an offset to the pension division. He is not entitled to social
security. His pension is slightly higher as a result. His wife is sharing in that higher
pension. He should be able to take into account all her retirement income when
determining his pension division with Mrs. Fifer.
The judgment entered after a December 3, 1998, hearing provides that plaintiff’s share of the
assets shall include:
[A] twenty-six (26%) percent interest in the Defendant’s vested pension plan
benefits with the Michigan State Police Retirement System that accrued during the term
of the marriage up to and including August 24, 1998, the date of trial in this case. . . .
The remaining 74% interest is awarded to and shall remain the property of the
Defendant, . . .
In deciding the twenty-six percent -- seventy-four percent division of defendant’s pension, the
court accepted the mathematical calculations presented by defense counsel in consultation with the
actuary. The formula utilized the stipulated present values of defendant’s age sixty pension benefits and
plaintiff’s age sixty-two social security benefits to achieve a fifty/fifty split of the present value of all
retirement benefits.
On appeal, plaintiff argues first that the court erred as a matter of law in considering anticipated
social security benefits for the property division. Second, plaintiff asserts that if social security benefits
are to be considered, the pension award was unfair and inequitable. I disagree with both positions.
Pursuant to Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 158-159; 458 NW2d 893 (1992), all relevant
factors should be considered by the trial court in fashioning a fair and equitable property division. See
also Evans v Evans, 98 Mich App 328, 330-331; 296 NW2d 248 (1980). In my view, anticipated
social security benefits are relevant to the earning abilities of the parties. Sparks, supra at 160.
While holding the trial court may consider plaintiff’s anticipated social security benefits, the
majority concludes that the trial court erred in finding the social security benefits at issue were capable of
a setoff. I disagree. Here, because the present value of the social security benefit has been stipulated
by the parties, the asset “has a present ascertainable value” capable of being setoff. Evans, supra at
331.
In Sparks, supra at 152, the Supreme Court held “that the [dispositional] ruling [of the trial
court] should be affirmed unless the appellate court is left with the firm conviction that the division was
inequitable.” Under the totality of the circumstances that include the stipulated
-2
present values of both defendant’s pension and plaintiff’s social security benefits, I am not left with a
firm conviction that the property division was inequitable. I would affirm.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.