PRIOR HISTORY:  [***1]
     Appeal of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-30(2) from a decision of a divided panel of the Court of
     Appeals, 82 N.C. App. 329, 346 S.E. 2d 504 (1986), vacating the judgment entered by Keever, J., on
     24 September 1985 in District Court, Cumberland County, and remanding for further proceedings.

     DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
 

    COUNSEL: McLeod, Senter & Winesette, P.A., by Joe McLeod and William L. Senter; Reid, Lewis &
     Deese, by Renny Deese, for plaintiff appellee.

     Harris, Sweeny & Mitchell, by Ronnie M. Mitchell; Blackwell, Swaringen & Russ, by John V. Blackwell, Jr.,
     for defendant appellant.

     JUDGES: Whichard, Justice.

     OPINIONBY: WHICHARD

     OPINION:  [*367]   [**507]  The issue in this equitable distribution action is whether the trial court
     erred in deferring, until actual receipt, an anticipated award of military pension and retirement benefits
     calculated under a present value valuation method. We hold that it did.

      [*368]  Plaintiff-wife instituted this action against defendant-husband seeking an absolute divorce,
     based on separation for one year, and equitable distribution of the marital property. The parties' primary
     marital assets are their vested individual pension and retirement benefits. They also have $ 27,000
     equity in a house and lot and approximately $ 15,475 in personal property.  [***3]

     The parties stipulated that plaintiff-wife's pension and retirement benefits had a total value of $
     43,284.07 on the date of separation, which is the date for valuation of marital property when a divorce
     is granted based on separation for one year.  [**508]  N.C.G.S. 50-21(b) (1984). Using
     defendant-husband's base pay on the date of separation, $ 1,780 per month, the trial court determined
     that he would have been entitled to $ 1,112.50 per month in benefits had he retired on that date. The
     court further determined that as of the date of separation defendant-husband had served twenty-four
     years and eleven months in the United States Army, of which he was married to plaintiff-wife for
     twenty-two years and three months. Therefore, eighty-seven and one-half percent of
     defendant-husband's pension and retirement benefits was earned during the marriage. Using a life
     expectancy for defendant-husband of 25.5 years and a rate of investment return of ten percent, the
     court computed the present lump sum value of defendant-husband's pension and retirement benefits at
     $ 108,491.60. The court included the full amount as marital property and concluded that an equal
     division of the marital  [***4]  property would be equitable.

     The court then awarded plaintiff-wife the full amount of her vested pension, the house, certain
     personal property, and $ 20,966.26 as her share of the present value of defendant-husband's pension.
     The share of defendant-husband's pension was not to be paid, however, until he began receiving the
     benefits, and was then payable in monthly installments of $ 188.07. The court awarded
     defendant-husband the remaining value of his pension and certain other personal property.

     On plaintiff-wife's appeal the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment, holding that "the trial court erred
     and abused its discretion when, after properly choosing in its discretion to use the present value
     evaluation method, it impermissibly postponed or deferred payment instead of ordering immediate
     payment." Seifert  [*369]  v. Seifert, 82 N.C. App. 329, 339, 346 S.E. 2d 504, 509 (1986). It also
     implicitly approved the fixed percentage of future payments method of valuation and distribution, finding
     it consistent with the statute which prescribes acceptable methods of payment of pension and
     retirement benefit awards.

     Chief Judge Hedrick dissented on the ground that an immediate  [***5]  distributive award of the
     husband's pension would violate N.C.G.S. 50-20(b)(3). He also asserted that the fixed percentage of
     future payments method, discussed and approved by the majority, violates our statutory and case law
     by dispensing with valuation of the marital property. Seifert v. Seifert, 82 N.C. App. at 339-40, 346 S.E.
     2d at 509-10.

     N.C.G.S. 50-20(b)(3), in pertinent part, provides:
 

          [A] distributive award of vested pension and retirement benefits may be payments payable:
 

               a. As a lump sum by agreement;

               b. Over a period of time in fixed amounts by agreement; or

               c. As a prorated portion of the benefits made to the designated recipient at the
               time the party against whom the award is made actually begins to receive the
               benefits.
 

     Thus, absent agreement, a court cannot order the immediate or periodic payment of a distributive
     award of vested pension and retirement benefits prior to the employee-spouse's actual receipt thereof.

     Like the majority in the Court of Appeals, however, we do not construe this statute to preclude, absent
     agreement, application of the present value valuation method to vested pension and retirement benefits
      [***6]  in valuing and distributing an entire marital estate. Our statute clearly provides for both in kind
     and monetary awards in order to achieve an equitable distribution of the marital estate. N.C.G.S.
     50-20(e), in pertinent part, provides:
 

          In any action in which the court determines that an equitable distribution of all or portions
          of the marital property in kind would be impractical, the court in lieu of such distribution
          shall provide for a distributive award in order to achieve  [*370]  equity between the
          parties. The court may provide for a distributive award to facilitate, effectuate or
          supplement a distribution of marital property.
 

     A "distributive award" is "payments that are payable either in a lump sum or over a period of time in
     fixed amounts . . . ." N.C.  [**509]  G.S. 50-20(b)(3) (1984). Thus, if the marital estate contains
     adequate property other than the pension and retirement benefits, an in kind or monetary distribution of
     these assets may be made which takes into account the anticipated pension and retirement benefits.
     This is impermissible only when the value of the pension or retirement benefits is so disproportionate in
     relation to other marital  [***7]  property that an immediate distribution would be inappropriate. See
     King v. King, 332 Pa. Super. Ct. 526, 534, 481 A. 2d 913, 917 (1984).

     The fixed percentage method of evaluating pension and retirement benefits also clearly comports with
     the statute, which provides that a distributive award of vested pension and retirement benefits may be
     payable "[a]s a prorated portion of . . . benefits . . . [when] the party against whom the award is made
     actually begins to receive benefits." N.C.G.S. 50-20(b)(3) (1984). Under this method if, after valuing
     the marital estate, the court finds a distributive award of retirement benefits necessary to achieve an
     equitable distribution, the nonemployee spouse is awarded a percentage of each pension check based
     on the total portion of benefits attributable to the marriage. The portion of benefits attributable to the
     marriage is calculated by multiplying the net pension benefits by a fraction, the numerator of which is
     the period of the employee spouse's participation in the plan during the marriage (from the date of
     marriage until the date of separation) and the denominator of which is the total period of participation
     in the plan. See  [***8]  Jerry L.C. v. Lucille H.C., 448 A. 2d 223, 225 (Del. Super. Ct. 1982). The
     nonemployee spouse receives this award only if and when the employee spouse begins to receive the
     benefits. N.C.G.S. 50-20(b)(3) (1984).

     Under the fixed percentage method, deferral of payment is possible without unfairly reducing the value
     of the award. The present value of the pension or retirement benefits is not considered in determining
     the percentage to which the nonemployee spouse is entitled. Moreover, because the nonemployee
     spouse  [*371]  receives a percentage of the benefits actually paid to the employee spouse, the
     nonemployee spouse shares in any growth in the benefits. See N.C.G.S. 50-20(b)(3) (1984) ("Said
     award shall not be based on contributions made after the separation, but shall include any growth [i]n
     the amount of the pension or retirement account vested at the time of the separation."). Yet, the
     formula gives the nonemployee spouse a percentage only of those benefits attributable to the period of
     the marriage, and that spouse does not share in benefits based on contributions made after the date of
     separation. Id.

     Finally, so long as the trial court properly ascertains  [***9]  the net value of the pension and
     retirement benefits to determine what division of the property will be equitable, application of the fixed
     percentage method does not, as the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals suggests, violate the
     mandate that the court must identify the marital property, ascertain its net value, and then equitably
     distribute it. See Cable v. Cable, 76 N.C. App. 134, 331 S.E. 2d 765, disc. rev. denied, 315 N.C. 182,
     337 S.E. 2d 856 (1985) (cited in the dissenting opinion). On the contrary, valuation of these benefits,
     together with other marital property, is necessary to determine the percentage of these benefits that
     the nonemployee spouse is equitably entitled to receive.

     We thus conclude that where the value of the total marital estate is sufficient to permit it, both
     present value and fixed percentage are permissible methods of evaluating pension and retirement
     benefits in arriving at an equitable distribution of marital property. Here, however, the trial court erred
     in deferring, until actual receipt, payments calculated under the present valuation method. As stated by
     the Court of Appeals: "This, in effect, operated as a double reduction:  [***10]  plaintiff received a
     discounted value for immediate distribution but nevertheless was required to wait to receive payment
     until, if and when, the defendant reached retirement and began receiving benefits." Seifert v. Seifert,
     82 N.C. App. at 338, 346 S.E. 2d at 509. The effect is an unfair or inequitable  [**510]  reduction in
     the value of the award between the date of separation and the date of the employee-spouse's
     retirement.

     We note that the parties' pension and retirement benefits in this case were so disproportionate in
     relation to other assets that  [*372]  there was insufficient marital property from which to make a
     present equitable award, given the determination that an equal division would be equitable. Thus, if
     upon remand the trial court again determines that an equal division of the marital property would be
     equitable, it should value the marital assets (including the pension and retirement benefits), calculate
     the percentage of the pension and retirement benefits to which plaintiff-wife is entitled, and order a
     deferred award of such benefits payable when defendant-husband actually begins to receive them.
     N.C.G.S. 50-20(b)(3) (1984).

     The decision of  [***11]  the Court of Appeals vacating the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The
     case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for remand to the trial court for further proceedings not
     inconsistent with this opinion.

     Affirmed.