With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to ever-changing conditions which it demands.” Mack, 323 N.W.2d at 156 n. 1 (quoting Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 609, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 (1960)). Similarly, we believe that substitute pension plans such as the one in issue, are not so similar to federal social security benefits as to render them exempt from the provisions of section 61.076(1), Florida Statutes. We therefore hold that pension plans, such as the Social Security Replacement Plan at issue and similar plans which purport to substitute for federal social security, are marital assets and should be distributed pursuant to section 61.076(1), Florida Statutes. The trial court thus properly considered the instant Social Security Replacement Plan as a marital asset. See Olson v. Olson, 445 N.W.2d 1 (N.D.1989)(<HOLDING>). With respect to whether the court should have

A: holding that debtors additional retirement fund was not reasonably necessary
B: holding that the former husbands property from a noninterspousal gift may not be distributed under section 610751 although use of the former husbands separate property may be awarded to the former wife to satisfy the former husbands child support obligation
C: holding liability could not be transferred to the fund where the certificate of insurance was not signed
D: holding that former husbands highway patrol retirement fund could be taken into account in dispersing marital property even though the fund was a substitute for social security
D.