I write separately in this case to address a single issue of paramount significance here: the decision to retire and just how much scrutiny it should receive in the factual context of the case under submission. Assuredly, I concur in the result reached by the majority, which reinstates the trial court’s reduction of Bogan’s support obligation. I disagree, however, with the breadth of the reasoning used to reach that result. In my view, the decision to retire, particularly among workers nearing the ends of their careers, is personal, private, and nearly sacrosanct. Thus, I am compelled to clarify that I would limit the majority analysis to those cases involving obligors who have not yet reached the age for Social Security eligibility, presently age 62. In cases involving obligors who decide to retire after age 62, I would not subject the retirement decision to analysis embraced by the majority
Case Number
E1998-00060-SC-R11-CV
Originating Judge
Chancellor John S. McLellan, III
Case Name
Richard Thomas Bogan v. Doris Mae Bogan - Concurring/Dissenting
Date Filed
Dissent or Concur
This is a dissenting opinion
Download PDF Version
boganrtD.pdf13.81 KB