Did the trial court err in dividing Gilberts federal postal retirement benefits?
[13] By way of notice of review, Gilbert challenges the award of 31.3% of his retirement benefits to Peggy, contending that she was not entitled to an interest in his [96 SDO 157] retirement. He also argues that it is contrary to the principles of an equitable property division to make such an award. In response, Peggy contends that she should have been awarded the entirety of Gilbert’s pension. [14] We have repeatedly adhered to the principle that retirement benefits which have accrued during the marriage are marital assets subject to property division. Abrams v. Abrams, 516 NW2d 348, 351 (SD 1994). As a marital asset, the trial court is compelled to divide this asset based on the seven standard factors to be considered in making an equitable property division: (1) the duration of the marriage; (2) the value of the property; (3) the age of the parties; (4) the health of the parties; (5) the parties’ competency to earn a living; (6) the contribution of each party to the accumulation of
