rehearing. There, we were considering evaluation of jointly held marital property, not separately held marital property. However, we believe that the reasons for reevaluation on remand are the same as in the original hearing—to obtain the most accurate evaluation and equitable distribution. A decision of this Court and decisions of courts of other jurisdictions support the proposition that reevaluation should be made on remand. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 4 Va. App. 113, 118, 355 S.E.2d 18, 21 (1987). Where fluctuations in value are so rapid as to be material between the date of hearing and the date on which the actual division is made, the decree should contain a provision permitting modification taking account of the changes. Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 175 N.W.2d 148 (1970) (<HOLDING>); see Cleverly v. Cleverly, 151 Vt. 351, 561
holding that where the trial court awarded the former husband the value of his pension plan but failed to calculate the present value of the plan case must be reversed and remanded for redetermination of equitable distribution holding that a fixed system of distribution is applicable where no present value can be established holding that custody should not be changed unless conditions have altered since the decree was rendered or material facts existed at the time of the decree but were unknown to the court and then only for the welfare of the child holding that if the market value of an asset can be ascertained the decree should account for the change in value between the date of the decree and the timely execution of the distribution plan in the decree the distribution based on value at the distribution date holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the date of filing the petition for dissolution as the valuation date for equitable distribution