Sessions v. Sessions, 1 CA-CV 15-0589-FC

Parties married in 1988; Husband began participating in PSPRS on October 17, 1993. Wife filed for dissolution in 2002; marriage dissolved effective February 1, 2005.
In December 2005 the parties entered a stipulated Domestic Relations Order (DRO), approved by the superior court and signed by both parties, dividing Husband’s PSPRS pension by a specified formula.
The DRO required Wife’s share to be calculated as: (Husband’s payment based on 20 years’ service) × (months married while Husband participated in PSPRS ÷ total months of 20 years’ service) × 50%, then subtract $219.14.
Pension counsel, before Husband reached 20 years’ service, estimated Husband’s 20‑year benefit and applied the DRO formula, yielding $606.76/month payable to Wife effective November 1, 2013.
Husband objected, offering $275/month and arguing the DRO should instead use a calculation based on Husband’s three highest years of pre‑petition income and that using the 20‑year benefit improperly awards post‑dissolution earnings; Wife sought enforcement. The superior court enforced the DRO formula. Husband appealed.

Issue	Husband's Argument	Wife's Argument	Held
Proper baseline for the DRO formula: whether to use Husband’s actual 20‑year benefit or a calculation based on his three highest pre‑petition years	DRO should be calculated using Husband’s three highest years of income as of Nov. 1, 2002	DRO’s plain language requires the amount payable based on 20 years’ total service; pension counsel used that amount	Court held the DRO’s plain language controls; using the 20‑year benefit estimate was correct
Whether Husband’s signature or misunderstanding excuses enforcement	Husband claims he misunderstood DRO terms and expected a different calculation	DRO was signed and approved by Husband; signatures presume knowledge and assent absent fraud	Court held Husband’s unilateral misunderstanding does not void the DRO; he is bound by the signed agreement
Whether applying the 20‑year benefit awards post‑dissolution earnings in violation of A.R.S. § 25‑318 and Koelsch	Relying on Koelsch and § 25‑318, Husband argues earnings after dissolution are separate and cannot be awarded to Wife	DRO is a final judgment; parties negotiated and the court entered a DRO that precisely allocated the pension interest; enforcement governed by judgment law	Court held Koelsch does not invalidate an enforceable DRO; because Husband did not appeal the DRO when entered, he is bound and enforcement is proper
Standard of review for enforcement	—	—	Order enforcing DRO reviewed for abuse of discretion; none found

Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176 (1986) (pension earnings during marriage are community property; post‑dissolution earnings are separate property)
Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106 (App. 2005) (abuse of discretion includes legal error in exercising discretion)
Teran v. Citicorp Person-to-Person Fin. Ctr., 146 Ariz. 370 (App. 1985) (a signer of a written agreement is bound by its provisions absent fraud or misrepresentation)
Boncoskey v. Bonkoskey, 216 Ariz. 448 (App. 2007) (qualified DROs are appealable as special orders after final judgment)
In re Marriage of Zale, 193 Ariz. 246 (1999) (final judgment is an independent resolution and governs despite parties’ negotiated intent)