Shill v. Shill
Idaho Supreme Court
765 P.2d 140 (1988)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In 1957, Douglas Shill (defendant) and Jeanette Shill (plaintiff) were married. In 1958, Douglas became employed with an Idaho fire department and began contributing wages to a pension plan, the Idaho Firemen’s Retirement Fund. By statute, the pension plan provided the following retirement benefits: prior to 20 years of employment, a fireman could only collect the contributions he had made; at 20 or more years of employment, a fireman could collect 40 percent of the average fireman’s salary; and at 24 or more years of employment, a fireman could collect 60 percent of the average fireman’s salary. In October 1977, when Douglas had completed 19 and one-half years of employment, Jeannette and Douglas were divorced by decree. On April 14, 1978, at 20 years of employment, Douglas first became eligible for pension benefits. Douglas continued to work as a fireman, however, and retired after 24 years of service, on April 18, 1982. Due to appellate proceedings, the trial court did not adjudicate the community-property interest in the pension benefits until 1986. The trial court valued the community interest of the pension as of the date of Douglas’s actual retirement, or April 1982, when his benefits had risen to 60 percent of the average fireman’s salary. The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the matter.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Shepard, C.J.)
Dissent (Huntley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
