¶1concurring and dissenting:
¶2¶ 1 Since the author of the majority opinion has undertaken a careful scrutiny of the record, and provided a perceptive expression of rationale, I hasten to agree that the settlement agreement provides for wife to receive alimony based on pension income of appellee only in monthly installments and not in a lump sum distribution, but am unable to join in the opinion as I believe the cash distribution of $99,071.50 of March 20, 1995, made directly to appel-lee and not to an IRA, was clearly monthly pension income requiring he pay 20% of $99,071.50
¶3¶ 2 Since the other accounts, the $485,952.75, $440,261.83, $81,847.53, and $117,034.60 were rolled over to a qualified IRA account, those sums were not income to appellee.
¶4¶3 The agreement contemplated and clearly provided for appellant to receive, in monthly installments, 20% of the income received each month by appellee.
¶5¶4 Thus, I would require appellee to comply with the terms of the agreement which require periodic payments of 20% of his “monthly retirement income [derived from] pension payments.”
¶6¶ 5 I join in the opinion of my learned colleagues in all other respects.
¶7. This distribution was not rolled over to the IRA account and was ordinary income, taxable to appellee when received. Thus, it qualifies, plain and simply, as monthly income.