is a portion of the retirement benefits represented by the number of years of the marriage divided by the husband's [or wife's] employment. The wife [or h e Woodward formula, stating that "the decision to give equal credit for each year of [Husband's] service in the plans is consistent with the approach set forth in [Woodward ]." The court also reasoned that it was not able to apply "strict] Woodward formulas because the benefits were converted to lump sums before the end of the marriage." Finally, the court acknowledged that a significant portion of Husband's benefits accrued during the years the parties were married, and announced its intention to "make some equitable adjustments to recognize that." In so doing, the trial court was clearly acting within its discretion. See id. (<HOLDING>). 128 Contrary to Wife's argument, we determine
holding it is within the trial courts discretion to choose on a casebycase basis the method although expressly rejecting the reserved jurisdiction method holding that the method used to distribute retirement benefits was properly a matter within the trial courts discretion holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion recognizing this method