for the Inequities in Berry v. Berry, 39 Baylor L.Rev. 1131, 1188-89 (1987). At the time of the declaratory judgment, Daniel had elected to participate in the “30 and out” option, thereby fixing his pension benefits as matured, and presently available. This maturity marks the date for valuing the benefits, from which Maytag would set the amount of the benefits in conjunction with the Agreement. Cassandra, as alternate payee under the QDRO, should have been paid her proportionate share based on Maytag’s $2600 per month valuation. Any other resolution would be inequitable to Cassandra and such manipulation of the value as Daniel proposed is not anticipated under the Plan, the decree, or the QDRO. See In re Marriage of Lehman, 18 Cal.4th 169, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 825, 955 P.2d 451, 456 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Halbert v. Halbert, 220 Ga.App. 615, 469
holding a nonemployee spouse who holds a community pioperty interest in an employee spouses retirement benefits owns a community property interest in the latters iethement benefits as enhanced by eaily xetirement incentives holding that although a spouse may have had a right to apportion military retirement benefits at one time the act requires the spouse to assert that right before entry of a finalized divorce decree or waive the right to the benefits holding that a nonemployee spouse holds a community marital property interest in pension plan early retirement enhancements because practically by definition the right to retirement benefits that accrues at least in part during marriage before separation underlies any right to an enhancement holding that nonemployee spouse waived distribution of her husbands early retirement benefits because although both parties were aware of the enhancements the additional benefits were not included in calculation of the pension funds at the time of dissolution holding that although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage of the retirement pension benefits