D. S. v. D. S.

Summary

The court held that the defendant's potential law-firm retirement payments were too speculative to constitute marital property because the firm could reduce or terminate them at any time and the payments were unfunded, nontransferable, and subject to substantial financial contingencies. The court also upheld an alimony order tied to the defendant's continued employment as an active partner or receipt of retirement payments, concluding that the trial court properly considered the statutory and equitable factors and acted within its discretion. One justice dissented, but the dissenting opinion is not included here.