in part by the use of the non-employee spouse’s separate property interest in the fund. The enti 552 (N.Y.App.Div.2006) (reversing the provisions of the QDRO that deviated from the judgment of divorce and the parties’ stipulation with respect to death and survivor benefits, early retire ment subsidy benefits and restraints on plaintiffs conduct as a participant in the pension plan). The better view, which is in accord with our Iowa case law contemplating economic protection of both parties in retirement, is to value the pension upon maturity. See In re Marriage of McLaughlin, 526 N.W.2d 342, 344 (Iowa Ct.App.1994) (awarding proportionate shares of a pension if and when payable, while striving to assure similar retirement security for both spouses.) See also Duggan, 659 N.W.2d at 561 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, to exclude Cassandra from
holding veterans administration disability payments are separate property after dissolution of marriage holding that post dissolution costofliving increases are marital property as they stemmed from employment during the marriage holding that costofliving increases are not the result of any postdivorce labor but rather are a means of offsetting the otherwise declining value of retirement benefits after they become fixed holding that retirement benefits are marital property because they would be a form of deferred compensation funded by money earned during the parties marriage holding that money invested in voluntary investment plan during marriage was marital property because it was property acquired during marriage