sa-blefish fisheries, but upon the work he performed during his marriage to Betty Jo. As the trial court noted, in order to fish during the qualifying years for the IFQs, Greg expended marital assets and effort, and Betty Jo is entitled to share in the benefits received from these efforts. Greg also contends that Ferguson should not control because the court in Ferguson did not consider the “economic impact [on the fisher] of a marital division” of IFQs. Greg contends that the IFQ program acts as a legal disability to fishers, and that quota shares are analogous to workers’ compensation benefits or early retirement benefits in that their transferability compensates a fisher for lost future earnings which are not marital property. See Miller v. Miller, 739 P.2d 163, 165-66 (Alaska 1987) (<HOLDING>); In re Frahm, 45 Cal.App.4th 536, 53
holding that health benefits earned during marriage are marital asset of insured spouse holding that workers compensation disability benefits received by disabled spouse are marital property only to the extent that they compensate for loss of earnings during the marriage holding that money invested in voluntary investment plan during marriage was marital property because it was property acquired during marriage 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 trial court had no authority to award portion of the marital property to wifes children from another marriage even though money they received by way of social security benefits were commingled with the marital estate and used in part for the aequisition of marital property