With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". fraction would entitle plaintiff to 25.22 percent of defendant’s military pension if defendant retired at,his earliest retirement date, 11 July 2003. In addition, the trial court properly attempted, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-20.1(b) (3), to award plaintiff a prorated portion of defendant’s military pension, one-half of the marital portion of each of defendant’s pension payments, to be paid by defendant at the time he began receiving benefits. However, the trial court failed to determine that defendant’s military pension was a defined benefit retirement plan and failed to value it. We further note the record contained evidence regarding the value of defendant’s military pension as of the date of separation. Cf. Albritton v. Albritton, 109 N.C. App. 36, 426 S.E.2d 80 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reverse and remand the trial

A: holding the petition date is the appropriate date to value the collateral when the debtors intend to remain in the home
B: holding the exclusion of cumulative evidence was not prejudicial error
C: holding that if the market value of an asset can be ascertained the decree should account for the change in value between the date of the decree and the timely execution of the distribution plan in the decree the distribution based on value at the distribution date
D: holding the trial courts error in not valuing a retirement account was not prejudicial because plaintiff failed to provide evidence regarding the date of separation value
D.