PDA

View Full Version : Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA)



Pages : [1] 2

SeenItAll
05-14-2010, 02:32 PM
Does anyone have any current information regarding the changing or repeal of the USFSPA? Who are the "front running activists" aginst this outdated Act? I have searched the internet and mostly what I find is legal descriptions on the law. The latest info concerning the repeal of the law are a year or older.
It also seems from what I have been reading, the state courts do not even understand this law. State courts do not HAVE to split retired pay. The law just gives them authroity to do so. There is a difference.

Measure Man
05-14-2010, 03:18 PM
Does anyone have any current information regarding the changing or repeal of the USFSPA? Who are the "front running activists" aginst this outdated Act? I have searched the internet and mostly what I find is legal descriptions on the law. The latest info concerning the repeal of the law are a year or older.
It also seems from what I have been reading, the state courts do not even understand this law. State courts do not HAVE to split retired pay. The law just gives them authroity to do so. There is a difference.

What would you like to see it changed to?

TJMAC77SP
05-14-2010, 04:31 PM
Oh boy...........................here we go.

USN - Retired
05-14-2010, 08:16 PM
Does anyone have any current information regarding the changing or repeal of the USFSPA?

It has been a long and tough battle. Congress doesn't want to touch it. The whole issue is political poison. Interestingly, a growing number of women are now starting to oppose USFSPA. Some of the second wives of retired military service members are not happy with USFSPA, i.e. they're not happy that part of their husband's military retirement pay is going to an ex-wife, especially when the ex-wife doesn't really need or deserve a part of the military retirement pay. Additionally, there is a growing number of retired female military service members who are losing part of their military retirement pay because of USFSPA.


Who are the "front running activists" aginst this outdated Act?

Here are the websites of those groups who are fighting for equity and fairness in a military divorce:
http://www.ulsg.org/
http://www.americanretirees.org/


State courts do not HAVE to split retired pay. The law just gives them authroity to do so. There is a difference.

In community property states, the courts must split the military retirement pay (i.e. income) if the military spouse demands a part of the military retirement pay. Even in those states that are not community property states, the courts usually split the military retirement pay when the military spouse demands a part of the military retirement pay, especially in no-fault divorce cases.

I get the impression that the military spouse community, both former and current, is avoiding any open debate about USFSPA. I suspect that they know that the pendulum has swung far to their side, and they are hoping to hold on to their advantage for as long as possible.

USN - Retired
05-14-2010, 08:20 PM
What would you like to see it changed to?

1. Here are some changes that I would make:

a. USFSPA should order the divorce courts to look at military retirement pay as income. Military retirement pay should not be considered as property by state divorce courts. If a former military spouse needs "protection", then the state divorce courts can award her alimony and/or child support. USFSPA should continue to allow alimony and/or child support to be garnished from military retirement pay, i.e. sent directly from DFAS to the ex-spouse.

b. Additionally, USFSPA should state that any and all civilian retirement accounts (401k, TSP, IRA, etc) earned by a military spouse are not to be considered marital property or community property. In other words, any and all civilian retirement accounts (401k, TSP, IRA, etc) earned by a military spouse should be the sole property of the military spouse. I do understand just how radical that proposal sounds, but if life for the working military spouse is really as tough as everyone says it is, then why should a military service member be allowed, in a divorce, to claim co-ownership of the civilian retirement accounts (401k, TSP, IRA, etc) that were earned by his or her military spouse?

3. Questions to ponder - Should those military spouses who have never been the primary caregiver of the children of military service members be given the same protections under the USFSPA as those military spouses who are or were the primary caregiver of the children of military service members? If the answer is "yes", then why?

4. The current version of USFSPA is a form of legislative hocus pocus that has changed income into property. A retirement from the military doesn't really have any of the characteristics of property.

USN - Retired
05-14-2010, 08:22 PM
Oh boy...........................here we go.

This is my favorite subject! :D

Hopefully, the military spouses, both former and current, will show up here for an aggressive :boxing yet civil :love debate of this interesting subject.
:whoo :lol

mel44
05-14-2010, 08:28 PM
I don't know much about this subject because James and I have our own money and our own retirement as well as James has an education and career that will follow retirement from the military but I will comment on the fact that his first wife was married to him 7 years and the divorce court awarded her 1/2 of his retirement. She then went on to marry the soldier she left him for and was married to him for 8 years and got half his retirement. Now this woman has never served nor did she work but due to children she gets $2000. a month child support from us and another thousand from the second soldier and full retirement by getting half of both mens retirement. There is just something wrong with this!

USN - Retired
05-14-2010, 09:12 PM
on the fact that his first wife was married to him 7 years and the divorce court awarded her 1/2 of his retirement.

Did the court really say that he has to pay her 50% of his military retirement pay for life? Did your husband hire Daffy Duck as his attorney in his divorce? For a military marriage that lasted only seven years, the former military spouse would normally get 17.5% of the military retirement, assuming that the military service member retires at 20 years of service (i.e. 7/20 X 50% = 17.5%). You might want to check the details on his divorce decree.
Since your hubby was only married for 7 years to his ex-wife, DFAS won't pay her directly.


but due to children she gets $2000. a month child support from us

I have no children. I only paid about $300 once for a vasectomy. It looks like I got the better deal.


There is just something wrong with this!

Have you and your husband signed the USFSPA petition to congress?
http://www.petitiononline.com/USFSPA/petition.html

mel44
05-14-2010, 09:28 PM
We have never had any luck with the Georgia court systems. Every time James has gone back for an amendment or to enforce original order they always uphold the original ruling or slap her on the hand and say "no no". I have to not think about it because it makes me want to fight and its not my place, its his. I just think its wrong. He works hard for his retirement and it should not be something that is given away that easy. I think if it were me I would just quit the year before retirement just to spite her, but thats me :) He is a Engineer and will make a nice living once the military is over so its not really the money, it's the principle.

Measure Man
05-14-2010, 09:29 PM
1. Here are some changes that I would make:

a. USFSPA should order the divorce courts to look at military retirement pay as income. Military retirement pay should not be considered as property by state divorce courts. If a former military spouse needs "protection", then the state divorce courts can award her alimony and/or child support. USFSPA should continue to allow alimony and/or child support to be garnished from military retirement pay, i.e. sent directly from DFAS to the ex-spouse.

b. Additionally, USFSPA should state that any and all civilian retirement accounts (401k, TSP, IRA, etc) earned by a military spouse are not to be considered marital property or community property. In other words, any and all civilian retirement accounts (401k, TSP, IRA, etc) earned by a military spouse should be the sole property of the military spouse. I do understand just how radical that proposal sounds, but if life for the working military spouse is really as tough as everyone says it is, then why should a military service member be allowed, in a divorce, to claim co-ownership of the civilian retirement accounts (401k, TSP, IRA, etc) that were earned by his or her military spouse?

3. Questions to ponder - Should those military spouses who have never been the primary caregiver of the children of military service members be given the same protections under the USFSPA as those military spouses who are or were the primary caregiver of the children of military service members? If the answer is "yes", then why?

4. The current version of USFSPA is a form of legal hocus pocus that has changed income into property. A retirement from the military doesn't really have any of the characteristics of property.

I would like to see the law come up with an "approximate value" of the military retirement for the servicemembers rank and years in service...

...and then allow the courts to treat that value as if it were in a 401K or other account, and award the spouse an appropriate cash value rather than this lifelong payment thing.

For example...say and E-6 with 12 years in...his retirement "value" might equate to say...$60K. So, the judge may order him to pay his spouse $30K of that $60K. (obviously since he doesn't actually have it in cash, a payment plan may be needed)...but then once he's done, he's done.

This would protect the spouse from future misconduct of the servicemember...(like say a divorced Colonel who rapes his secretary and loses his retirement...both for himself and his ex-wife's portion). It would also not have the spouse benefitting from the future service of the member (i.e. that TSgt gets commissioned, does 30 more years and retires as a colonel, when she was only there for the TSgt part).

I don't think this scheme would be inconsistent with the rest of the US laws regarding property distribution at the time of divorce.

USN - Retired
05-14-2010, 09:43 PM
I think if it were me I would just quit the year before retirement just to spite her,

I know a guy who did that.

USN - Retired
05-15-2010, 12:11 AM
I would like to see the law come up with an "approximate value" of the military retirement for the servicemembers rank and years in service...

...and then allow the courts to treat that value as if it were in a 401K or other account, and award the spouse an appropriate cash value rather than this lifelong payment thing.

For example...say and E-6 with 12 years in...his retirement "value" might equate to say...$60K. So, the judge may order him to pay his spouse $30K of that $60K. (obviously since he doesn't actually have it in cash, a payment plan may be needed)...but then once he's done, he's done.

This would protect the spouse from future misconduct of the servicemember...(like say a divorced Colonel who rapes his secretary and loses his retirement...both for himself and his ex-wife's portion). It would also not have the spouse benefitting from the future service of the member (i.e. that TSgt gets commissioned, does 30 more years and retires as a colonel, when she was only there for the TSgt part).

I don't think this scheme would be inconsistent with the rest of the US laws regarding property distribution at the time of divorce.

So what happens if the former military spouse dies before she receives all of her cut of the military retirement? Would her heirs inherit her future share of the military retirement? In other words, would your plan provide the former military spouse with property rights to her share of the military retirement, i.e. the right to leave to her heirs her cut of the military retirement that she has not yet received? Would the retired military service member have any such right under your proposal?

Measure Man
05-15-2010, 12:47 AM
So what happens if the former military spouse dies before she receives all of her cut of the military retirement? Would her heirs inherit her future share of the military retirement? In other words, would your plan provide the former military spouse with property rights to her share of the military retirement, i.e. the right to leave to her heirs her cut of the military retirement that she has not yet received? Would the retired military service member have any such right under your proposal?

Hadn't thought of that part...but yes, I would assume it would pass to her heirs...why not?

My wife got half her first husband's 401K...what should happen to that money when she dies?

mel44
05-15-2010, 12:52 AM
MM I like your proposal! What can we do to get it submitted for consideration?

Measure Man
05-15-2010, 01:09 AM
MM I like your proposal! What can we do to get it submitted for consideration?

Write your congressman I suppose...LOL

mel44
05-15-2010, 01:13 AM
Ok but I am getting t-shirts that say "TEAM MEASURE MAN"......

USN - Retired
05-15-2010, 09:22 PM
Hadn't thought of that part...but yes, I would assume it would pass to her heirs...why not?

So does that mean that military retirement should be "property" for the former military spouse, but it should remain "income" for the retired and divorced military service member?


My wife got half her first husband's 401K...what should happen to that money when she dies?

You should give it back to the man who earned it. Let me guess -- that wouldn't happen...

Let's take a look at the current system:

If a former military wife who is receiving part of a military retirement pay direct from DFAS were to die before her former husband, then her so-called "share" of the military retirement reverts back to her former husband, i.e. the monthly military retirement income will no longer be divided when the former military spouse dies. Property usually doesn't behave that way. If the deceased former spouse's share of the military retirement pay was her "property", then why is it not going to her heirs?

Additionally, if a military service member were to die before his former wife, then the former wife would no longer receive her so-called "share" of the military retirement pay (assuming the court did not order SBP). If the former spouse's share of the military retirement pay is her "property", then why did she lose it when her former husband died? Property usually doesn't behave that way either.

Now let's take a hypothetical look at what might happen under your proposal:

A US Navy Lieutenant (O-3) and his wife, Mrs A, were divorced after 8 years of marriage. Mrs A was awarded $48,000.00 of the Lieutenant's military retirement pay. The Lieutenant didn't have that money available at the time of the divorce so payment was deferred until he retires when it will then be paid in installments with interest from his retirement pay to his ex-wife. A year after the divorce, the Lieutenant's ex-wife married Mr B, a man who never served in the military and was never even a military spouse. Mrs B (i.e the Lieutenant's ex wife) died a year after she married Mr B. Will Mr B, a civilian in every sense of the word, now receive $48,000.00 of the Lieutenant's military retirement pay paid in installments with interest from the Lieutenant's military retirement pay? Is it right for Mr B to receive a part of the Lieutenant military retirement pay? That is a potentially egregious situation.

Under your proposal, a retired military service member might even conceivably end up making payments to some man who ran off with his wife. Your proposal might possibly be viable only if the law stated that the award of military retirement pay can only be collected by the former military spouse and not by any of her heirs if she should die before she collects the military retirement pay.

On the other hand, your proposal might be considerably better for those military service members who were in short term marriages. Under your proposal, those military service members who were in short term marriages would not be stuck making payments for life to an ex-spouse.

Comparing a 401k to military retirement pay is the common ruse used by former military spouses, their lawyers, and numerous politicians. While there may be some very vague similarities, there are also some big differences. Here's the biggest difference: The 401k is "property" while the military retirement pay is "income". If we are really serious about treating military retirement as "property", then it is only fair and proper to say that a military service member who currently has 19 years of service has a military retirement account balance of zero. Additionally, since it takes 20 years of service to earn the military retirement pay, a military spouse whose marriage was less than 20 years certainly did not earn the so called "property" of military retirement pay because she has not "served" for 20 years. If a military service member has to serve for 20 years to earn the so-called "property" of military retirement pay, then why shouldn't the spouse be held to the same standard?

What would happen if we were to re-write USFSPA so that it directs the courts to look at military retirement pay as income instead of property? The courts could still award the former military spouse with alimony and/or child support. The judge could still award the alimony for life. The former military spouses could still get the money direct from DFAS. The former military housewife would still be financially protected if her hubby were to run off with his new girl friend. Would the military spouse community accept such a change to USFSPA? The answer is "never" and here's why - In a divorce, property acquired during the marriage is usually divided regardless of whether each person needs or even deserves a share of that property, especially in community property states. Alimony, on the other hand, is usually only given if a person needs and deserves the alimony. The military spouse community, current and former, want to ensure that they will get a cut of the military retirement pay even if they don't need or even deserve a cut of that pay. In other words, the average military housewife doesn't want to lose her lifetime cut of the military retirement pay just because she chose to abandon her family and run off with the bartender at the Officers' Club. And that's why the military spouse community want military retirement pay to be considered property.

I can't believe that you let me drag you into another debate about USFSPA. You must be kicking yourself.:laugh

Measure Man
05-16-2010, 02:49 AM
So does that mean that military retirement should be "property" for the former military spouse, but it should remain "income" for the retired and divorced military service member?



You should give it back to the man who earned it. Let me guess -- that wouldn't happen...

Of course not...it's her money and that's the last thing she would want. Actually, it will go to her children.

Marriage is as much a business contract as anything else. If you and another person made a contract...and under the terms of this contract, he agrees to provide you a share of a joint account for your non-profit making contributions to his business...if the contract is severed, he owes you that money. It is your money.


Let's take a look at the current system:

If a former military wife who is receiving part of a military retirement pay direct from DFAS were to die before her former husband, then her so-called "share" of the military retirement reverts back to her former husband, i.e. the monthly military retirement income will no longer be divided when the former military spouse dies. Property usually doesn't behave that way. If the deceased former spouse's share of the military retirement pay was her "property", then why is it not going to her heirs?

Additionally, if a military service member were to die before his former wife, then the former wife would no longer receive her so-called "share" of the military retirement pay (assuming the court did not order SBP). If the former spouse's share of the military retirement pay is her "property", then why did she lose it when her former husband died? Property usually doesn't behave that way either.

There is no doubt that military retirement is not exactly like other types of property. We have no argument there.


Now let's take a hypothetical look at what might happen under your proposal:

A US Navy Lieutenant (O-3) and his wife, Mrs A, were divorced after 8 years of marriage. Mrs A was awarded $48,000.00 of the Lieutenant's military retirement pay. The Lieutenant didn't have that money available at the time of the divorce so payment was deferred until he retires when it will then be paid in installments with interest from his retirement pay to his ex-wife.

Under my proposal it would not be delayed until his retirement...he would pay it immediately. What he didn't have, would be paid in installments beginning immediately. Perhaps, she could get her entire share from a state fund that he then owes the debt to.


A year after the divorce, the Lieutenant's ex-wife married Mr B, a man who never served in the military and was never even a military spouse. Mrs B (i.e the Lieutenant's ex wife) died a year after she married Mr B. Will Mr B, a civilian in every sense of the word, now receive $48,000.00 of the Lieutenant's military retirement pay paid in installments with interest from the Lieutenant's military retirement pay? Is it right for Mr B to receive a part of the Lieutenant military retirement pay? That is a potentially egregious situation.

It is Mrs Bs money.


Under your proposal, a retired military service member might even conceivably end up making payments to some man who ran off with his wife. Your proposal might possibly be viable only if the law stated that the award of military retirement pay can only be collected by the former military spouse and not by any of her heirs if she should die before she collects the military retirement pay.

I understand the diffuclty in this situation...however, it is not inconsistent with any other form of property a spouse gets in a divorce. It happens all the time...wife gets the house in divorce...later that house goes to her second husband, who now lives in the house that the first husband paid for. I imagine that sucks...but divorce sucks...but a bad marriage sucks worse.


On the other hand, your proposal might be considerably better for those military service members who were in short term marriages. Under your proposal, those military service members who were in short term marriages would not be stuck making payments for life to an ex-spouse.

precisely.


Comparing a 401k to military retirement pay is the common ruse used by former military spouses, their lawyers, and numerous politicians. While there may be some very vague similarities, there are also some big differences. Here's the biggest difference: The 401k is "property" while the military retirement pay is "income".

Actually...military retirement pay is property...lol...that's what the USFSPA says. But, yes, it is different than other forms of property


If we are really serious about treating military retirement as "property", then it is only fair and proper to say that a military service member who currently has 19 years of service has a military retirement account balance of zero. Additionally, since it takes 20 years of service to earn the military retirement pay, a military spouse whose marriage was less than 20 years certainly did not earn the so called "property" of military retirement pay because she has not "served" for 20 years. If a military service member has to serve for 20 years to earn the so-called "property" of military retirement pay, then why shouldn't the spouse be held to the same standard?

You don't earn your retirement just for your 20th year of service...you earn it for each of the 20 years.

Obviously, the reason it is treated this way is to "protect" the nonmilitary spouse if the military member runs off at 19 years and leaving the spouse with nothing.


What would happen if we were to re-write USFSPA so that it directs the courts to look at military retirement pay as income instead of property? The courts could still award the former military spouse with alimony and/or child support. The judge could still award the alimony for life. The former military spouses could still get the money direct from DFAS. The former military housewife would still be financially protected if her hubby were to run off with his new girl friend. Would the military spouse community accept such a change to USFSPA? The answer is "never" and here's why - In a divorce, property acquired during the marriage is usually divided regardless of whether each person needs or even deserves a share of that property, especially in community property states. Alimony, on the other hand, is usually only given if a person needs and deserves the alimony. The military spouse community, current and former, want to ensure that they will get a cut of the military retirement pay even if they don't need or even deserve a cut of that pay. In other words, the average military housewife doesn't want to lose her lifetime cut of the military retirement pay just because she chose to abandon her family and run off with the bartender at the Officers' Club. And that's why the military spouse community want military retirement pay to be considered property.

The alimony set up could also work...assuming that the courts could award alimony off of "future income"...I think that would work as well.


I can't believe that you let me drag you into another debate about USFSPA. You must be kicking yourself.:laugh

...always a pleasure, my friend, always a pleasure.

TJMAC77SP
05-17-2010, 02:26 PM
I just knew this would happen.............................

Once again, the fact that the military retirement system is NOT a typical retirement where marital assets are invested over time and therefore dividable at divorce as community property is being ignored. It is an inconvenient truth (God I love Al Gore, I can give him credit for one thing in life) but nonetheless truth. I know this is déjà vu (since I have said it approximately a dozen times on this forum) but…….

I think it is an unfair law signed under duress by legislators made to feel guilty by the horror stories of terrible military retirees who trade in their wife for a younger model after the loyal wife has given up her career chances to loyally follow her man from base to base.

The above described scenario is terrible and deserves to be rectified. Unfortunately it is the exception and not the rule portrayed by Pat Schroeder during her histrionics in getting the bill passed.

Unlike a traditional retirement annuity, there is no community property put into a military retirement (i.e. cash). It is the labor of the military member alone which results in the retired pay. The DoD Comptroller made this clear to Congress on many occasions. This advice was ignored time and again.

The military member must complete a minimum of 20 years of loyal and adequate service in order to receive their retired pay. A wife must merely stay married for 10 of those years and her conduct is not held to the loyalty test. Her faithfulness or unfaithfulness to the marriage is not grounds for a judge to dismiss the request. She has no burden to prove that by being married to the service member and moving from place to place her career chance were limited. In fact if it could be proved that job opportunities for the wife were enhanced by being married to the military member it has no bearing on the decision to award a portion of the retired pay. It is simply a matter of math. Years of service, years of marriage, amount of overlap. Period, done, money awarded.

While repeal of the law would not be the fairest of acts, modification to allow judges to weigh the facts as they apply to each and every case would go a long way towards rectifying many wrongs done to retired military members since the passage of the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (USFSPA).

Many speak of fairness and equity. I agree. Apply the same standards the military member is subject to in earning his/her retirement to its division. Faithful and honorable service…..did the wife sacrifice anything (tangible and provable)?

I realize that the USFSPA states that the retired pay can be considered community property but that doesn't make it a good law. God knows there have been and will be innumerable bad laws. All we can do is hope for redress with some future Congress. For all you who think that the law is fair as written feel free to do what you want with your retired pay.

USN - Retired
05-17-2010, 06:53 PM
If you and another person made a contract...and under the terms of this contract, he agrees to provide you a share of a joint account for your non-profit making contributions to his business...

Does your marriage contract specifically state that you agree to provide your wife with a share of your military retirement income? Does your marriage contract specifically state that your wife is a co-owner of any property that you acquire during your marriage?


if the contract is severed, he owes you that money.

The marriage contract for a military housewife is a completely nonbinding contract, legally speaking. The military housewife does not have any legal obligations to fulfill in the marriage contract. If a housewife breaks the marriage contract, she faces no financial penalties. Actually, if a housewife breaks the contract, she may be financially rewarded, i.e. with alimony and community property. What does the military housewife owe her husband if she breaks the marriage contract? It is a very lopsided contract. It's not really even a contract. The warranty on your new toaster is a more legally binding contract than the marriage contract.


Marriage is as much a business contract as anything else.

If there are no children in the marriage, then what exactly does a military housewife contribute to her so-called "business contract" of marriage?

In my opinion, marriage should be a strictly personal relationship based on love and respect, and not on money. We should get government out of marriage altogether. Government (i.e. marriage law and divorce law) has made a mess of the institution of marriage. We should do away with the divorce industry. Legally, the government should look at a married couple as roommates or housemates. Of course, that probably won't happen anytime soon. Perhaps I am thinking way too far outside the box.


There is no doubt that military retirement is not exactly like other types of property.

That's because it is not property.


We have no argument there.

We don't?!?!


Under my proposal it would not be delayed until his retirement...he would pay it immediately. What he didn't have, would be paid in installments beginning immediately. Perhaps, she could get her entire share from a state fund that he then owes the debt to.

What if he doesn't retire? You would have him pay for something that doesn't yet exist and may never exist.


but divorce sucks...

Divorce doesn't seem to financially suck for the spouse who didn't earn any money in a marriage.



Actually...military retirement pay is property...lol...that's what the USFSPA says.

USFSPA is legislative hocus pocus. I get the impression that you believe that USFSPA is moral and right simply because it is the law.


You don't earn your retirement just for your 20th year of service...you earn it for each of the 20 years.

But at year nineteen, there is NO military retirement. You, USFSPA and the military spouses say that military retirement pay is "property". The IRS, DFAS and I say that military retirement pay is "income". No matter what you call that critter though, it simply does not exist at year nineteen.


Obviously, the reason it is treated this way is to "protect" the nonmilitary spouse if the military member runs off at 19 years and leaving the spouse with nothing.

Should USFSPA also financially "protect" the childless (or childfree) military housewife of 7 years who was a miserable wife and who ran off with the pool cleaner at the base pool?

The frustrating aspect of a debate about USFSPA is that ardent USFSPA supporters, especially most of the military wives, are only willing to look at one side of the coin. On one side of the coin, we have the wonderful and loyal military housewife of 30 years who was the primary caregiver of 4 children. That woman deserves some financial protection in the event of a divorce (possibly even a lifetime share of the military retirement pay direct from DFAS). On the other side of the coin, we have the former military spouse who was a military wife for only 10 years, she never worked, she never raised children as the primary caregiver, and she often created problems for her husband and the military. I challenge everybody here on this forum to show us why that woman deserves any financial protection in a divorce other than perhaps very short term alimony.

It is understandable that we have laws that protect the military spouses, but the laws should also protect the military service members. We have laws that protect military service members from predatory lenders. We should also have laws that protect military service members from predatory spouses.


...always a pleasure, my friend, always a pleasure.

I do really enjoy this debate. I just wish we could give it more visibility.

squidnut
05-27-2010, 08:52 PM
A former spouse in my opinion should not be allowed any percentage of the retirement. Can I reach out and touch her retirement from a civilian source? No I cannot. It is income not property. Solution, to be eligible for any retirement the former spouse should have to prove the divorce was caused by the service member. Deployments and service do not count on that as it is Army directed. If the service member was unfaithful or abusive then yeah he/she earned it and that member deserves to lose it. Other than that it is a rule made by a lawmaker that got bedded down with somebodys wife/husband and wanted some cash.

Measure Man
05-27-2010, 09:03 PM
A former spouse in my opinion should not be allowed any percentage of the retirement. Can I reach out and touch her retirement from a civilian source? No I cannot.

Uhm...yes, you can.

USN - Retired
05-28-2010, 12:20 AM
Uhm...yes, you can.

Yes, you can, but let's not forget...

The award of retired pay to a former spouse is usually based on the military member's rank/rate/pay grade at the date of retirement, not at the time of divorce. This inequity has no parallel in the civilian sector where the status of the two parties at the time of divorce usually governs the settlement. For example, a naval officer, divorced as a Lieutenant, retires as an Admiral. The pay to be shared with his former spouse is usually based on the current retired pay for an Admiral --not the pay of a Navy Lieutenant (O-3) twenty-five years earlier. This is fundamentally unfair since the former spouse had nothing to do with the Lieutenant's advancement to Rear Admiral.

Additionally, if a woman marries a man who is already a Colonel or Captain (O-6) and then divorces him ten years later when he retires as a Colonel or Captain (O-6), then the retired pay to be shared with the former spouse is usually based on the current retired pay for a Colonel or Captain (O-6). This is also fundamentally unfair since the former spouse had nothing to do with the man's advancement to Colonel or Captain (O-6).

Measure Man
05-28-2010, 05:20 AM
Yes, you can, but let's not forget...

The award of retired pay to a former spouse is usually based on the military member's rank/rate/pay grade at the date of retirement, not at the time of divorce. This inequity has no parallel in the civilian sector where the status of the two parties at the time of divorce usually governs the settlement. For example, a naval officer, divorced as a Lieutenant, retires as an Admiral. The pay to be shared with his former spouse is usually based on the current retired pay for an Admiral --not the pay of a Navy Lieutenant (O-3) twenty-five years earlier. This is fundamentally unfair since the former spouse had nothing to do with the Lieutenant's advancement to Rear Admiral.

Correct...which I why I think they should assign an approximate value to the retirement at the time of divorce.


Additionally, if a woman marries a man who is already a Colonel or Captain (O-6) and then divorces him ten years later when he retires as a Colonel or Captain (O-6), then the retired pay to be shared with the former spouse is usually based on the current retired pay for a Colonel or Captain (O-6). This is also fundamentally unfair since the former spouse had nothing to do with the man's advancement to Colonel or Captain (O-6).

This is not inconsistent with what a civilian would do also. If you go out and marry a neurosurgeon with 20 years experience that is making $800K per year...while you are married to her, the $800K she makes is marital assets, even though you had nothing to do with her advancement to experienced neurosurgeon.

I'm not saying it's fair...just saying in this respect, military members are no worse off than civilians.

TJMAC77SP
05-28-2010, 11:14 AM
Correct...which I why I think they should assign an approximate value to the retirement at the time of divorce.



This is not inconsistent with what a civilian would do also. If you go out and marry a neurosurgeon with 20 years experience that is making $800K per year...while you are married to her, the $800K she makes is marital assets, even though you had nothing to do with her advancement to experienced neurosurgeon.

I'm not saying it's fair...just saying in this respect, military members are no worse off than civilians.

Except for that pesky little fact.......I have come to call it ‘an inconvenient truth’ that the neurosurgeon will be collecting on a retirement annuity (and I am assuming you are referring to the doctor's retirement and not his salary which would not be community property) which was funded by marital assets and therefore without question divisible as community property.

This horse just never dies does it?

Measure Man
05-28-2010, 03:23 PM
Except for that pesky little fact.......I have come to call it ‘an inconvenient truth’ that the neurosurgeon will be collecting on a retirement annuity (and I am assuming you are referring to the doctor's retirement and not his salary which would not be community property) which was funded by marital assets and therefore without question divisible as community property.

This horse just never dies does it?

There are contributory and non-contributory pension plans out there...all are divisible...

Your military retirement is part of the compensation you earn...if you earned a portion of it while being married..that portion is marital property.

Some civilian folks have pensions that pay out much like a military retirement...that are ordered under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)...what a quaddro generally does that they don't do for miltary retirement...is assign a value.

USN - Retired
05-28-2010, 06:58 PM
This is not inconsistent with what a civilian would do also. If you go out and marry a neurosurgeon with 20 years experience that is making $800K per year...while you are married to her, the $800K she makes is marital assets, even though you had nothing to do with her advancement to experienced neurosurgeon.

So basically what you are saying is that the laws should allow military spouses to financially fleece military service members in divorce courts because our laws also allow civilians who work and earn money to be financially fleeced by their spouses in divorce courts.


I'm not saying it's fair....

Thank you for not saying it's fair. :thumb

Measure Man
05-28-2010, 07:09 PM
So basically what you are saying is that the laws should allow military spouses to financially fleece military service members in divorce courts because our laws also allow civilians who work and earn money to be financially fleeced by their spouses in divorce courts.

Thank you for not saying it's fair. :thumb

I'll say this...there are times when division of pensions is fair..and there are times that it isn't fair. If you'd agree with that, then you must agree with this...any law prohbiting division of the pension would be unfair...and any law requiring division would likewise be unfair.

All the law SHOULD do...is allow judges to judge what makes sense in each case...and that is all the USFSPA, by itself, does. Now, before you go on to your "hand in glove with state laws" rant....if a state passes a law that subsequently treates military retirement unfairly because of the permission it was granted in USFSPA...that is a problem with the state law, not the USFSPA.

garhkal
05-29-2010, 01:28 PM
If we are really serious about treating military retirement as "property", then it is only fair and proper to say that a military service member who currently has 19 years of service has a military retirement account balance of zero. Additionally, since it takes 20 years of service to earn the military retirement pay, a military spouse whose marriage was less than 20 years certainly did not earn the so called "property" of military retirement pay because she has not "served" for 20 years. If a military service member has to serve for 20 years to earn the so-called "property" of military retirement pay, then why shouldn't the spouse be held to the same standard?

WEll said. Imo if we are to look at what you are to get as a service member at retirement as pay/property, then it does not kick in TILL you actually hit the 20 mark. So to me the marriage should last that long for her to be considered to get 50% of it.


Under my proposal it would not be delayed until his retirement...he would pay it immediately. What he didn't have, would be paid in installments beginning immediately. Perhaps, she could get her entire share from a state fund that he then owes the debt to.

And would he get a payback From her, if he does not retire for what ever reason?


Actually...military retirement pay is property...lol...that's what the USFSPA says. But, yes, it is different than other forms of property
And that is what we are arguing it should NOT BE. It is income, or more importantly, a retainer fee. NOT property.


You don't earn your retirement just for your 20th year of service...you earn it for each of the 20 years.

Being you only get it if you serve a min OF 20 years, i say that you have to get 20 to 'earn it'.


The marriage contract for a military housewife is a completely nonbinding contract, legally speaking. The military housewife does not have any legal obligations to fulfill in the marriage contract. If a housewife breaks the marriage contract, she faces no financial penalties. Actually, if a housewife breaks the contract, she may be financially rewarded, i.e. with alimony and community property. What does the military housewife owe her husband if she breaks the marriage contract? It is a very lopsided contract. It's not really even a contract. The warranty on your new toaster is a more legally binding contract than the marriage contract.

Very true. ALl contracts to my knowledge, have penalties in them for when one side or the other break it. WHERE is her penalties? THERE ARE NONE. Only rewards for her to break it.


Obviously, the reason it is treated this way is to "protect" the nonmilitary spouse if the military member runs off at 19 years and leaving the spouse with nothing.

And what of the MILITARY member's protection? There is none in this act. In fact the spouse can do what the hell they damn well please knowing this act will guarantee them something out of the marriage should they make it to X years of being hitched.. so they can do as they damn well want once that time has come.


On the other side of the coin, we have the former military spouse who was a military wife for only 10 years, she never worked, she never raised children as the primary caregiver, and she often created problems for her husband and the military.

Or the spouse of 8 years who consistently was caught cheating on her hubby while he was deployed. Spent his money, racked up debt in his name and then ran away leaving him to suffer.
Why do those stories (WHICH DO HAPPEN) not get the same press as the ones supporting keeping this damnable act in the law books.

TJMAC77SP
06-01-2010, 02:12 PM
There are contributory and non-contributory pension plans out there...all are divisible...

Your military retirement is part of the compensation you earn...if you earned a portion of it while being married..that portion is marital property.

Some civilian folks have pensions that pay out much like a military retirement...that are ordered under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)...what a quaddro generally does that they don't do for miltary retirement...is assign a value.

Can you give me an example of a non-contributary pension plan where not one dollar of earned income, either directly (wages) or indirectly (union dues) is not paid into the fund? Aside from the US military that is.

TJMAC77SP
06-01-2010, 02:15 PM
I'll say this...there are times when division of pensions is fair..and there are times that it isn't fair. If you'd agree with that, then you must agree with this...any law prohbiting division of the pension would be unfair...and any law requiring division would likewise be unfair.

All the law SHOULD do...is allow judges to judge what makes sense in each case...and that is all the USFSPA, by itself, does. Now, before you go on to your "hand in glove with state laws" rant....if a state passes a law that subsequently treates military retirement unfairly because of the permission it was granted in USFSPA...that is a problem with the state law, not the USFSPA.

You continue to ignore the fact that the vast majority of state courts simply do not have the foggiest clue on the subtleties of the differences in the pensions and simply lump them into the community property pot and be done with it. The law is vague, I believe it was purposely written and has been kept that way (my opinion)

Measure Man
06-02-2010, 09:06 PM
You continue to ignore the fact that the vast majority of state courts simply do not have the foggiest clue on the subtleties of the differences in the pensions and simply lump them into the community property pot and be done with it. The law is vague, I believe it was purposely written and has been kept that way (my opinion)

Given the variety of state laws and situations, I have no doubt it was purposely written to be vague.

The Federal government should not be dictating to the states how to handle divorces...

Measure Man
06-02-2010, 09:14 PM
Can you give me an example of a non-contributary pension plan where not one dollar of earned income, either directly (wages) or indirectly (union dues) is not paid into the fund? Aside from the US military that is.

The Teamsters retirement that my employees are under...is paid by the employer, not the employee. Though, you might consider that an "earned income" even though that money is not paid to the employee and the employee does not have the option to disenroll and get that pay instead...employees pay their own union dues which do not go into the pension fund, but into the union general fund. They can't really opt out of the union either except to opt out of the portion of their dues that go to political contributions.

While falling out of fashion, there are still many "defined-benefit plans" out there...many of which give you X amount of monthly pension for X years worked...and you'll continue to draw that if you live to 200. Certainly there is usually some sort of "fund" associated with the plans, but it's often not an individual fund...when a court issues a QDRO to figure the value of that pension, they use the entitlement earned, the age at which you'll begin drawing it, and standard life expectancies to determine the approximate value of the pension at the time of divorce

garhkal
06-03-2010, 10:29 AM
Given the variety of state laws and situations, I have no doubt it was purposely written to be vague.

The Federal government should not be dictating to the states how to handle divorces...

And while i can see why they did that, it is ALSO the biggest reason things get so hammed against service members...

TJMAC77SP
06-03-2010, 12:03 PM
Given the variety of state laws and situations, I have no doubt it was purposely written to be vague.

The Federal government should not be dictating to the states how to handle divorces...

And exactly how does the USFSPA NOT do exactly that ?!?!?!?!

TJMAC77SP
06-03-2010, 12:08 PM
The Teamsters retirement that my employees are under...is paid by the employer, not the employee. Though, you might consider that an "earned income" even though that money is not paid to the employee and the employee does not have the option to disenroll and get that pay instead...employees pay their own union dues which do not go into the pension fund, but into the union general fund. They can't really opt out of the union either except to opt out of the portion of their dues that go to political contributions.

While falling out of fashion, there are still many "defined-benefit plans" out there...many of which give you X amount of monthly pension for X years worked...and you'll continue to draw that if you live to 200. Certainly there is usually some sort of "fund" associated with the plans, but it's often not an individual fund...when a court issues a QDRO to figure the value of that pension, they use the entitlement earned, the age at which you'll begin drawing it, and standard life expectancies to determine the approximate value of the pension at the time of divorce

Interesting look at accounting there. Of course the union dues pay for the pension fund! Along with all other operating costs of the union as well. It is funded by wages of union members and the employee does still have a choice (as of today anyway) on whether to join the union and therefore have a portion of his WAGES go to the union.

Not quite, do you have another 'example' of a retirement plan just like the Military Retired Pay system?

You hinted at facts on the ground now as well. Many (and I would guess soon to be most, mine included) are doing away with traditional pension plans all together in favor of 401K plans etc. Bottom line is STILL that wages from the employee will at least partially fund whatever money the employee will receive upon retirement. No arguement that wages are community property.

USN - Retired
06-03-2010, 06:04 PM
Now, before you go on to your "hand in glove with state laws" rant.....

That's my favorite rant... :whoo

I will agree that the vast majority of the problem is with the state divorce laws. If the state divorce laws could be changed so that pensions are no longer considered to be marital property or community property, then USFSPA would be neutered. Housewives would never agree to such a change to the divorce laws for obvious reasons. Of course, the number of housewives in our society has been on a continual decline. The number of women entering the job market continues to increase and the number of women who earn more than their husbands also continue to increase. I think it is a fair guess to say that those women who earn more than their husbands probably have no love for the legal concepts of marital property and community property. As soon as the number of women who earn more than their husbands reach a certain critical mass, we'll probably start quickly seeing some changes in the state divorce laws regarding marital property and community property.

Even though the majority of the problem is with the state divorce laws and pressure needs to be applied to the state legislatures to modify the divorce laws, it is still appropriate to lobby Congress for changes to the many inequities in USFSPA.

Measure Man
06-03-2010, 06:21 PM
And exactly how does the USFSPA NOT do exactly that ?!?!?!?!

...because the USFSPA doesn't MANDATE the states to do ANYTHING...

If you could convince your state to lay off military retirement...they are free to do that
If you could convince your state to include military retirement...they are likewise free to do that.

Measure Man
06-03-2010, 06:30 PM
Interesting look at accounting there. Of course the union dues pay for the pension fund! Along with all other operating costs of the union as well. It is funded by wages of union members and the employee does still have a choice (as of today anyway) on whether to join the union and therefore have a portion of his WAGES go to the union.

You are incorrect...at least with this union here, others may vary. The dues do NOT pay the pension fund.

For every hour an employee works, the company pays $X.XX into the pension fund...that is the ONLY money in the pension fund. The employee does NOT have the option to have that money paid to them instead of the pension fund.


Not quite, do you have another 'example' of a retirement plan just like the Military Retired Pay system?

I don't know of any that are "just like" military retired pay system...I don't think I claimed there were others that were "just like"....the claim, which still stands...is that there are other similar pensions, some contributory, some non-contributory that are also divisible in divorce courts.

The idea that military members are uniquely screwed in divorce through the division of their retirement as maritial property is wholly inaccurate. Can you name any other retirement plan or fund that is not divisible in divorce?

If USFSPA were completely thrown out...military spouses would be unique as the only spouses who were NOT entitled to a spouses pension.


You hinted at facts on the ground now as well. Many (and I would guess soon to be most, mine included) are doing away with traditional pension plans all together in favor of 401K plans etc. Bottom line is STILL that wages from the employee will at least partially fund whatever money the employee will receive upon retirement. No arguement that wages are community property.

...don't be surprised to see military retirement go that way also...the current system is just too costly for the Defense budget.

Bottom line is STILL that your military retirement is part of the compensation you earn while serving...if you are married during that time, it is a marital asset.

Measure Man
06-03-2010, 06:34 PM
That's my favorite rant... :whoo

I will agree that the vast majority of the problem is with the state divorce laws. If the state divorce laws could be changed so that pensions are no longer considered to be marital property or community property, then USFSPA would be neutered. Housewives would never agree to such a change to the divorce laws for obvious reasons. Of course, the number of housewives in our society has been on a continual decline. The number of women entering the job market continues to increase and the number of women who earn more than their husbands also continue to increase. I think it is a fair guess to say that those women who earn more than their husbands probably have no love for the legal concepts of marital property and community property. As soon as the number of women who earn more than their husbands reach a certain critical mass, we'll probably start quickly seeing some changes in the state divorce laws regarding marital property and community property.

I agree that this would be nice.


Even though the majority of the problem is with the state divorce laws and pressure needs to be applied to the state legislatures to modify the divorce laws, it is still appropriate to lobby Congress for changes to the many inequities in USFSPA.

...there are, I beleive some ways the USFSPA could be made better...but until we arrive at your utopian plan of never dividing any monies in divorce because each person is their own wage earner...I think the CONCEPT that military retirement is just as divisible as a retirement account should stand.

Measure Man
06-03-2010, 06:39 PM
And while i can see why they did that, it is ALSO the biggest reason things get so hammed against service members...

I don't think servicemembers get "hammed" any more than the average civilian male out there...

USN - Retired
06-03-2010, 06:51 PM
If USFSPA were completely thrown out...military spouses would be unique as the only spouses who were NOT entitled to a spouses pension.

A former military housewife who was married for at least ten years to a military service member would still be eligible to collect social security even if she never earned any money during her life.

garhkal
06-04-2010, 11:50 AM
As soon as the number of women who earn more than their husbands reach a certain critical mass, we'll probably start quickly seeing some changes in the state divorce laws regarding marital property and community property.

Which imo shows how sexist the law is, to where it has to hurt more women than it helps before it gets changed.


I think the CONCEPT that military retirement is just as divisible as a retirement account should stand.

And most of us don't. Retirements in the civilian sector do NOT COME with a clause that you can be recalled at any time of the presidents choosing. A military retirement DOES.

TJMAC77SP
06-06-2010, 06:38 PM
And...............it is not a pension...........have I heard that before?

USN - Retired
06-06-2010, 06:59 PM
On February 5, 1997, a civil jury in Santa Monica, California unanimously found Simpson liable for the wrongful death of and battery against Goldman, and battery against Brown. Simpson was ordered to pay $33,500,000 in damages. The Goldman family tried to collect Simpson's NFL pension of $25,000 a month but failed to collect any money because California law protects pensions from being used to satisfy judgments.

So our laws say that the Goldman family can not claim ownership of Simpson's NFL pension, yet our laws allow a lazy and unfaithful military housewife to claim ownership of her husband's military retirement income.

Measure Man
06-06-2010, 07:02 PM
On February 5, 1997, a civil jury in Santa Monica, California unanimously found Simpson liable for the wrongful death of and battery against Goldman, and battery against Brown. Simpson was ordered to pay $33,500,000 in damages. The Goldman family tried to collect Simpson's NFL pension of $25,000 a month but failed to collect any money because California law protects pensions from being used to satisfy judgments.

So our laws say that the Goldman family can not claim ownership of Simpson's NFL pension, yet our laws allow a lazy and unfaithful military housewife to claim ownership of her husband's military retirement income.

In similar news...if Simpson had been in the military instead of the NFL....the Goldman family would not have been able to touch his military retirement either.

USN - Retired
06-06-2010, 09:39 PM
In similar news...if Simpson had been in the military instead of the NFL....the Goldman family would not have been able to touch his military retirement either.

If the Goldman family shouldn't have the legal right to claim ownership of Simpson's NFL pension, then why should a lazy and unfaithful military wife have the legal right to use the divorce courts to claim ownership of the military retirement income of her husband?

Measure Man
06-06-2010, 10:49 PM
If the Goldman family shouldn't have the legal right to claim ownership of Simpson's NFL pension, then why should a lazy and unfaithful military wife have the legal right to use the divorce courts to claim ownership of the military retirement income of her husband?

It's apples and oranges...

If the Goldman family sues you for something and wins...they can't touch your military retirement either.

I understand your disagreement with the USFSPA...but let's not distort the facts here...

USN - Retired
06-07-2010, 01:08 AM
It's apples and oranges...

Why? Is it because you (and all the former military spouses) say so?

You didn't answer my question. You didn't even come close to answering my question.

USN - Retired
06-07-2010, 05:44 AM
...but let's not distort the facts here...

Which "fact" did I distort?

garhkal
06-07-2010, 09:35 AM
Very true. if the law says that retirements ar safe from court proceedings, then it should apply across the board to ALL proceedings. Which last time i looked, is what a divorce IS!

USN - Retired
06-08-2010, 05:56 PM
So far, it appears that only one current military spouse has participated in the debate on this thread. Why have the current and former military spouses been avoiding this debate? Do they have no passion or even an interest in this subject?

caliny
06-09-2010, 01:28 AM
Perhaps they're not here. Of the members that I do know (obviously only a small fraction, but most of them are SOs), only one is a current military spouse of an active duty servicemember. I can only think of a couple others who might even have this tangentially relate to them. For the past several years, military girlfriends are FAR more common on this board than spouses.

Maybe it's just a numbers issue. :noidea

garhkal
06-09-2010, 11:53 AM
Then perhaps those WITH spouses should start encouraging them to get on here and see what is going on.,

8man
06-10-2010, 04:28 PM
There will be no changes to this act unless you bugg the hell out of your Congressmen and Senators. They view this topic to toxic to touch at the expenses of the service members. Check out these links they are very informative.

http://groups.google.com/group/10usc1408

http://www.ulsg.org/

Measure Man
06-18-2010, 10:25 PM
Why? Is it because you (and all the former military spouses) say so?

You didn't answer my question. You didn't even come close to answering my question.


Which "fact" did I distort?

The facts that you are distorting is that you are presenting these two cases...Simpson and Military retirement as if there are some huge gaps in fairness between them....

When in reality...they are exactly alike.

While I don't really know whether or not NFL pensions are divisible in divorce...if they are anything like every other pension out there, it probably is.

And the NFL pension appears to be exactly like military pension in that it is not attachable for private debts.

Soooo....you saying that it's not fair the Goldman family, can not attach to his pension while a military spouse is entitled to her share of community property...is an apples an oranges comparison...you are comparing two things that are not at all the same.

Why not say it this way?

Is it fair, that a military member sued for gross negligence is immune from having his pension garnished to pay the plaintiff...while an NFL player loses a portion of his pension to his former spouse in divorce?

Gee, that's the same argument you made above, only reverse...now the military members are getting off easy while the NFLers are getting screwed, right?

USN - Retired
06-18-2010, 11:51 PM
The facts that you are distorting is...

I haven't distorted anything. The Goldmans can not touch OJ's NFL pension. It is a fact.


as if there are some huge gaps in fairness between them....

There are definitely some huge inconsistencies with the laws.

If the Goldman family can not claim ownership of OJ's NFL pension, then a military spouse should have no legal right to claim ownership of military retirement income.

-or-

Since a military spouse currently has a legal right to claim ownership of military retirement income, then the Goldman family should also have the legal right to claim ownership of OJ's NFL pension.

I am just pointing out an inconsistency in our legal system.



...while a military spouse is entitled...

Well I guess that's what it is all really about, now isn't it? Military spouses and their legal entitlements. Of course, there are no legal obligations that accompany those legal entitlements. That's probably why so many military housewives have a Princess mentality.


And the NFL pension appears to be exactly like military pension in that it is not attachable for private debts.


Military retirement pay can be garnished for alimony and child support. Isn't that a private debt?


.is an apples an oranges comparison...you are comparing two things that are not at all the same.

Comparing military retirement income to a 401(k) is an apples to oranges comparison, and you do that all the time.


Is it fair, that a military member sued for gross negligence is immune from having his pension garnished to pay the plaintiff...

That's definitely not fair. If a military member is found guilty of gross negligence, then why should his military retirement income NOT be garnished to pay the plaintiff?


...while an NFL player loses a portion of his pension to his former spouse in divorce?

Why should the NFL spouse get a portion of the NFL pension?

mel44
06-19-2010, 12:50 AM
UN - some of your arguments could be considered plausible but your hatred for women devalues your argument. You insist on regurgitating the woman being such a waste of space they deserve no credibility. You think this devalues the woman but in reality your disgracing men and their ability to make good decisions and take responsibility for their future and livelihoods. As if men are so weak that a pretty face, good lay and they are willing to sacrifice their entire financial future because they are just to ignorant to realize that getting married or having children will be their down fall.

These laws are geared to protect the spouse in the event they have sacrificed much of their earning career to support a soldier male or female. Yes there are those that don't deserve it but there are just as many that do. Such as the soldier that has had a dedicated wife worked low income jobs to support the lifestyle of military members and he comes home one night after 12 years and has traded her in for a new model. So who should the law serve? Those that deserve it or those that don't?

My crazy wife-in-law is a witch. She is everything you say but where is James's responsibility in this? He knew when he married her she was a witch. He reproduced with her. Who knows why he didn't see she was witch, maybe she gave good blow jobs, who knows but the bottom line is he stayed with her for all those years knowing what kind of person she was now he has to pay for it. Its just that simple. He has a responsibility in this. If you don't want to have an idiot for a spouse don't marry one. As for it being a woman issue, well that seems to always be your focus instead of issue.

garhkal
06-19-2010, 04:27 AM
These laws are geared to protect the spouse in the event they have sacrificed much of their earning career to support a soldier male or female. Yes there are those that don't deserve it but there are just as many that do. Such as the soldier that has had a dedicated wife worked low income jobs to support the lifestyle of military members and he comes home one night after 12 years and has traded her in for a new model. So who should the law serve? Those that deserve it or those that don't?

But a blanket policy screws over those who it effects when their spouse does not deserve anything. Its like a blanket (all who bring a gun to school are to be expelled, but someone has a toy soldier on their hat, should that be considered a gun) it is flat out stupid.

garhkal
06-19-2010, 04:28 AM
And to me, that protection should come in the form of judges having the capacity to decide it on their own, not cause of a flat blanket policy. As all that does (to me) is give reason for the spouse to not do a damn thing to help the mil person's career and she/he will benefit from it when he/she retires.

mel44
06-19-2010, 04:38 AM
But again G that falls on the soldier that married her in the first place. I have personal experience with this. Yes she was a leach but he continued to entertain the fact that he could win her over and ended up being married to her for 7+ years and having two children with her. He knew the risks, he knew what delaying the divorce meant but he did it anyways. He has to hold some responsibility. If he had gone to court and spent the money to prove she was a slut he would have won but he was unwilling to do that to protect his children so as my daddy has always said "If you marry an idiot and have children with them then your children has at least one idiot for a parent" No one made him stay with her no one made him have children with her. His choices his consequences. The courts can't determine character just rights. He should have divorced her when she presented with her behavior and then he would have his retirement today.

If James and I were to seperate today I would never think about attaching his retirement. I have a right to but I would never do that because I am not that kind of person. He made a good choice when he married me. Its that simple.

USN - Retired
06-19-2010, 06:08 AM
but your hatred for women devalues your argument. You insist on regurgitating the woman being such a waste of space they deserve no credibility.


Utter nonsense. Your personal attacks and shaming language won't work on me.


but in reality your disgracing men and their ability to make good decisions and take responsibility for their future and livelihoods.

And you're disgracing women and their ability to make good decisions and take responsibility for their future and livelihoods.


Such as the soldier that has had a dedicated wife worked low income jobs to support the lifestyle of military members and he comes home one night after 12 years and has traded her in for a new model

There's also the lazy military housewife who never worked, never raised any children and ran off with the bartender at the NCO club. She'll also probably get part of her ex-husband's military retirement pay.


So who should the law serve? Those that deserve it or those that don't?

The laws financially protect the military housewives whether they deserve it or not. It appears that the laws protect the spouses who choose to not work and do not protect the spouses who do work.


My crazy wife-in-law is a witch. She is everything you say but where is James's responsibility in this?

So are you saying that a man is responsible when his wife behaves badly? If she really is a crazy witch, then why doesn't the law financially protect him from her?


He reproduced with her.

What if he had not reproduced with her? i.e., What if she were not a mother? Should she still get part of his military retirement pay?


Yes she was a leach but he continued to entertain the fact that he could win her over and ended up being married to her for 7+ years and having two children with her. He knew the risks, he knew what delaying the divorce meant but he did it anyways. He has to hold some responsibility.

It sounds like you are incapable of holding women accountable for their actions. Or perhaps you believe that women should not be held accountable for their actions. It also sounds like you have little or no empathy for men.


The courts can't determine character just rights.

Why not? The courts consider a parent's character when determining child custody issues.

mel44
06-19-2010, 03:46 PM
Utter nonsense. Your personal attacks and shaming language won't work on me.

Its the absolute truth and in every post you make drips with resentment and bitterness toward women.


And you're disgracing women and their ability to make good decisions and take responsibility for their future and livelihoods.

No if you look at it from your point of view they made a pretty good living doing nothing.




There's also the lazy military housewife who never worked, never raised any children and ran off with the bartender at the NCO club. She'll also probably get part of her ex-husband's military retirement pay.

That is not true. If the man goes to court and proves she was unfaithful and contributed nothing the courts have the option to give her nothing.




The laws financially protect the military housewives whether they deserve it or not. It appears that the laws protect the spouses who choose to not work and do not protect the spouses who do work.

The laws protect the innocent.




So are you saying that a man is responsible when his wife behaves badly? If she really is a crazy witch, then why doesn't the law financially protect him from her?

The man or woman is responsible for the marriage and ending it if that is what is necessary.




What if he had not reproduced with her? i.e., What if she were not a mother? Should she still get part of his military retirement pay?

Thats not for me to decide. If the courts do not find her having done anything wrong except participate in the breakdown of the marriage then its the law. He knew that when he married. My mother help put my dad through school to get his education. Later he decided to be a big shot and run around so she divorced him. The courts gave her 1/2 of his retirement. She deserved it she helped obtain it.




It sounds like you are incapable of holding women accountable for their actions. Or perhaps you believe that women should not be held accountable for their actions. It also sounds like you have little or no empathy for men.

Its not my place to judge another persons character whether they are men or women. I only hold them accountable if I am engaged in a relationship with them. Even then its not my place to judge them just to decide if the relationship is something I want to engage in or not. If I chose to continue in a relationship for 10 years and then cry uncle then I get what I get.




Why not? The courts consider a parent's character when determining child custody issues.

The courts do not consider character past the point of safety of the children and most certainly do not consider it where alimony is concerned. Its not their job. There job is to divide the assets to the best of their ability with the information they have.

Measure Man
06-19-2010, 03:47 PM
I haven't distorted anything. The Goldmans can not touch OJ's NFL pension. It is a fact.

It is also a fact that your military pension is likewise protected.


There are definitely some huge inconsistencies with the laws.

The inconsistency is not between NFL pensions and military pensions though...as you seemed to be saying with your original post.


If the Goldman family can not claim ownership of OJ's NFL pension, then a military spouse should have no legal right to claim ownership of military retirement income.

-or-

Since a military spouse currently has a legal right to claim ownership of military retirement income, then the Goldman family should also have the legal right to claim ownership of OJ's NFL pension.

Certain things in your life are protected from attachment...for this same reason, the Goldman family would not be able to kick OJ out of his primary residence and collect the house against the debt (they can put a lien against it though)...but if you get divorced, either you or your spouse could be ordered from the house...


I am just pointing out an inconsistency in our legal system.

The inconsistency you are pointing out is the difference between...owing a debt in one case...and jointly holding property in the second case.


Well I guess that's what it is all really about, now isn't it? Military spouses and their legal entitlements. Of course, there are no legal obligations that accompany those legal entitlements. That's probably why so many military housewives have a Princess mentality.

Military retirement pay can be garnished for alimony and child support. Isn't that a private debt?

Yes...and that is the one exception specifically addressed.


Comparing military retirement income to a 401(k) is an apples to oranges comparison, and you do that all the time.

That's definitely not fair. If a military member is found guilty of gross negligence, then why should his military retirement income NOT be garnished to pay the plaintiff?

...I think it has something to do with not allowing people (not just military) to become homeless and destitute due to lawsuits...that they still have a right to have their needs met and pay off the debt with anything else...

This is why the Goldman family could not touch OJs pension...but they could get his autograph income...and rights to his book.


Why should the NFL spouse get a portion of the NFL pension?

...because it is community property...it's part of the compensation he earned while they were married, just like his salary was and the house they bought.

Measure Man
06-19-2010, 04:04 PM
And to me, that protection should come in the form of judges having the capacity to decide it on their own, not cause of a flat blanket policy. As all that does (to me) is give reason for the spouse to not do a damn thing to help the mil person's career and she/he will benefit from it when he/she retires.

So...what you are saying here is the USFSPA would be fair if it ALLOWED courts to divide military retirement, but did NOT REQUIRE them to do so?

USN - Retired
06-19-2010, 08:40 PM
Its the absolute truth and in every post you make drips with resentment and bitterness toward women.

Your shaming language and personal attacks are still not working. Not even close.

It does appear to me that men often get the short end of the stick in divorce cases. When a couple divorces, it is usually the man who is ordered from his house. It is usually the man who loses custody of his children. It is usually the man who pays alimony and child support. It is usually the man who loses part of his retirement pay. It is usually the man who is forced to give up property and money that he has earned.


That is not true. If the man goes to court and proves she was unfaithful and contributed nothing the courts have the option to give her nothing.


You are wrong. Very wrong. Totally wrong. The courts do NOT have that option in community property states. Even in states that are not community property states, the military retirement income is usually divided regardless of any bad behavior by the military wife. You simply don't know what you are talking about.


My mother help put my dad through school to get his education. Later he decided to be a big shot and run around so she divorced him. The courts gave her 1/2 of his retirement.

If a military service member puts his military wife through school, i.e. a military service member fully supports his military wife financially while she is in school, and the military wife then divorces her husband as soon as she graduates from school, the military wife will probably still get part of the military retirement pay. The husband, i.e. the military service member, will get nothing in return because the civilian degree earned by his military wife during their marriage is not considered to be community property.


The courts do not consider character past the point of safety of the children and most certainly do not consider it where alimony is concerned.


First. That comment regarding alimony is wrong. Secondly, that comment of yours appears to contradict the following comment of yours:


If the man goes to court and proves she was unfaithful and contributed nothing the courts have the option to give her nothing.


You often appear to just make up stuff as you go along.



My crazy wife-in-law is a witch. She is everything you say but where is James's responsibility in this?

He has a responsibility in this. If you don't want to have an idiot for a spouse don't marry one.

I have personal experience with this. Yes she was a leach but he continued to entertain the fact that he could win her over and ended up being married to her for 7+ years and having two children with her. He knew the risks, he knew what delaying the divorce meant but he did it anyways. He has to hold some responsibility. If he had gone to court and spent the money to prove she was a slut he would have won but he was unwilling to do that to protect his children...

You appear to have some personal issues with your husband.


As if men are so weak that a pretty face, good lay and they are willing to sacrifice their entire financial future because they are just to ignorant to realize that getting married or having children will be their down fall.

"A man in love is incomplete until he has married. Then he's finished. " ~Zsa Zsa Gabor

USN - Retired
06-19-2010, 08:50 PM
The inconsistency is not between NFL pensions and military pensions though...as you seemed to be saying with your original post.

Not really. The inconsistency is between the way the Goldmans are treated and the way spouses are treated.


but if you get divorced, either you or your spouse could be ordered from the house...

And who, in a divorce, is usually ordered from the house?

"I am a marvelous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man I keep his house." ~Zsa Zsa Gabor


and jointly holding property in the second case.

A retirement from the military is not jointly held and it is not property.


...I think it has something to do with not allowing people (not just military) to become homeless and destitute due to lawsuits...that they still have a right to have their needs met and pay off the debt with anything else...

Many men become homeless and destitute because of a divorce. Divorce is a lawsuit. Very few women, in a divorce, lose money that they personally earned. It does happen though.

USN - Retired
06-19-2010, 08:52 PM
So...what you are saying here is the USFSPA would be fair if it ALLOWED courts to divide military retirement, but did NOT REQUIRE them to do so?

Will the courts look at the military retirement as income or as property?

mel44
06-19-2010, 09:18 PM
UN you need to lay off the hooch!
You are randomly quoting things I never said, I believe you have myself and MM confused in your posts! And no I do not make it up as I go along I worked for an attorney while I put "myself" through school. I know things from the work I do now and I agree each state is different and different rules.

The bottom line is you should stay far away from females I think they may be after your manhood :) meanwhile my best suggestion is to get a prenup before saying I do if you feel she might not be all she was cracked up to be.

As for my husband you could only wish to be such a man! He is an honorable man and supports what he feels is necessary to make him accountable for his life, you on the other hand get on a forum and belittle yourself by attacking fictitious females as a means of justifying your, should we say, short comings! Good luck with that.... M&M I turn over the debate to you!

The mel has spoken!!!

garhkal
06-20-2010, 01:00 AM
So...what you are saying here is the USFSPA would be fair if it ALLOWED courts to divide military retirement, but did NOT REQUIRE them to do so?

I am saying that i would rather there not BE a USFSPA to 'guide' the courts in whether they made the decision. As i have heard on the news (radio) when judges were interviewed for this subject (06 iirc for a discussion on the subject of it) most judges felt that the law COMPELLS them to give retirement bennies to the spouses, even when they would normally not deserve it.


It does appear to me that men often get the short end of the stick in divorce cases. When a couple divorces, it is usually the man who is ordered from his house. It is usually the man who loses custody of his children. It is usually the man who pays alimony and child support. It is usually the man who loses part of his retirement pay. It is usually the man who is forced to give up property and money that he has earned.

Even when it was the man who was not the reason for the divorce to come about. heck in Texas, there are many divorce lawyers who flat out tell their customers to imediatly cry abuse as it forces the hubby out of the house., And in divorce down there, that weighs heavily in giving awards. EVEN if there is no proof of abuse.
So by that, and many other instances, i can easily see WHY some of us are so ;hot and heavy; against women when it comes to divorce.

Measure Man
06-20-2010, 07:44 AM
Not really. The inconsistency is between the way the Goldmans are treated and the way spouses are treated.

Yes...they are treated differently...of course they are different, but...this was really my point in interjecting from the beginning...your original post implied that the military member was somehow getting screwed more than OJ Simpson...but that's not the case...the difference in the cases you posted isn't in the pension systems, it's in the types of claimants trying to get a piece of it.


And who, in a divorce, is usually ordered from the house?

"I am a marvelous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man I keep his house." ~Zsa Zsa Gabor

I don't doubt that the man normally is...but am not really all that motivated to look it up.


A retirement from the military is not jointly held and it is not property.

LOL.


Many men become homeless and destitute because of a divorce. Divorce is a lawsuit. Very few women, in a divorce, lose money that they personally earned. It does happen though.

yeah...


Will the courts look at the military retirement as income or as property?

We all know the answer to this.

Measure Man
06-20-2010, 07:46 AM
I am saying that i would rather there not BE a USFSPA to 'guide' the courts in whether they made the decision. As i have heard on the news (radio) when judges were interviewed for this subject (06 iirc for a discussion on the subject of it) most judges felt that the law COMPELLS them to give retirement bennies to the spouses, even when they would normally not deserve it.

If they are compelled...it is their state laws that do so, not the USFSPA.


Even when it was the man who was not the reason for the divorce to come about. heck in Texas, there are many divorce lawyers who flat out tell their customers to imediatly cry abuse as it forces the hubby out of the house., And in divorce down there, that weighs heavily in giving awards. EVEN if there is no proof of abuse.
So by that, and many other instances, i can easily see WHY some of us are so ;hot and heavy; against women when it comes to divorce.

...I can see why you may resent women...no law is going to protect you from them.

caliny
06-20-2010, 05:12 PM
Yes...they are treated differently...of course they are different, but...this was really my point in interjecting from the beginning...your original post implied that the military member was somehow getting screwed more than OJ Simpson...but that's not the case...the difference in the cases you posted isn't in the pension systems, it's in the types of claimants trying to get a piece of it.

I wondered about this back when USN first posted about it, but I'll admit to not knowing an extensive amount about these particular legalities. But a family seeking money from a pension and a former spouse seeking money from a pension are two completely different things. And that's to say nothing of the lack of relationship between the Goldman family and Simpson.

zephyr243
08-02-2010, 08:35 PM
This is legalized prostitution. She can even get direct payments from the government. How about that the government pays prostitutes to service our military men and keeps them on a pension even after their services are no longer wanted/needed/ offered. I hope this act gets repealed and it is retroactive to all the 80's generation. They are the ones suffering in the gutter now. Right now My ex wife recieves half my retirement and the county while calculating my benefits for general assistance use my gross pay. THe Gross amount of my retirement this does not deduct all the payments to the EX. So not only am I disqualified for assistance but do not qualify for unemployment, food stamps, or or any other assistance. My Gross is too much. However my net is well below poverty. I served my country for 20 years. Went to ungodly places and did some things that I had to do to get the job done. Only to be stripped of my benefits by congress and the divorce courts. Young men entering the service GET an IRONCLAD PRENUP. Or just live with her.


I don't know much about this subject because James and I have our own money and our own retirement as well as James has an education and career that will follow retirement from the military but I will comment on the fact that his first wife was married to him 7 years and the divorce court awarded her 1/2 of his retirement. She then went on to marry the soldier she left him for and was married to him for 8 years and got half his retirement. Now this woman has never served nor did she work but due to children she gets $2000. a month child support from us and another thousand from the second soldier and full retirement by getting half of both mens retirement. There is just something wrong with this!

zephyr243
08-02-2010, 08:43 PM
Nice sentiment but in throws of a divorce you will go after his family jewels or your lawyer will either way he gets castrated.

USN - Retired
08-02-2010, 10:06 PM
This is legalized prostitution. She can even get direct payments from the government. How about that the government pays prostitutes to service our military men and keeps them on a pension even after their services are no longer wanted/needed/ offered. I hope this act gets repealed and it is retroactive to all the 80's generation. They are the ones suffering in the gutter now. Right now My ex wife recieves half my retirement and the county while calculating my benefits for general assistance use my gross pay. THe Gross amount of my retirement this does not deduct all the payments to the EX. So not only am I disqualified for assistance but do not qualify for unemployment, food stamps, or or any other assistance. My Gross is too much. However my net is well below poverty. I served my country for 20 years. Went to ungodly places and did some things that I had to do to get the job done. Only to be stripped of my benefits by congress and the divorce courts. Young men entering the service GET an IRONCLAD PRENUP. Or just live with her.

Have you signed the USFSPA petition to congress?
http://www.petitiononline.com/USFSPA/petition.html

garhkal
08-03-2010, 12:43 AM
Or as i like to say, become a widower before you become a divorcee..:ballchain

USN - Retired
08-06-2010, 06:58 PM
Stephanie L. Joyner
7730 E. Alhambra Drive
Sierra Vista, AZ 85650-9126
slmjoyner@hotmail.com


August 2, 2010

Office of the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
2000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20350-2000

Dear MCPON Rick D. West,

In March 2008 I wrote MCPON Campa regarding the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA). I have enclosed the letter. At this time I would like to bring to your attention a very serious matter that occurred because of this unfair/unconstitutional law that I feel will be of major interest to you in your position as MCPON.

My husband, Douglas W. Joyner, United States Navy CPO (SW/AW) RET was abused in the Texas state divorce court system because of the inequities in the federal law and an initial Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) paralegal error that created the entire mess that began in Nov. 2005 when my husband retired and continues to current date.

Because of the original DFAS error that went uncorrected for over 6 months a legal battle had ensued to get the percentage of military retainer pay (MRP) corrected. By the time DFAS corrected their mistake more mistakes in the TX state court system had occurred and it was too late for the original divorce decree and domestic relations order to remain in effect. This resulted in an increase from the 19.5% of MRP to be awarded to the former spouse up to 37%.

Needless to say since 2005 my husband has been in a continued legal battle over the correct division of his MRP. The lawsuit is currently on its way to the appeals level.

Why am I telling you all this you may wonder and why I think it should be a major concern for you and your office? My beloved husband committed suicide because of this. The unfairness of the USFSPA, stress and financial strain and the fact that he was going to have to pay his former spouse whom he was married to for 15 years almost $1000.00 a month FOR LIFE was the reason he took his own life. Rather than continue to pay her FOR LIFE he chose to take his own life so that her “cash-cow” would stop.

Since there is no other provision written into this law he took matters in to his own hands. Now look at the result. You lost a shipmate who served proudly for 24 years due to this law.

When are you and others in the DoD going to step up and make Congress do something about this? Senator Barbara Boxer (CA) refuses to even hold a hearing on this issue. Chairman of the HASC, Ike Skelton does nothing more than ignore the pleas of divorced Veterans. It is time the DoD force Congress to take action on this law. Yes, there are 2 sides and neither will ever agree. It is time the law favors the military member rather than a former spouse.

If the law were made to read that MRP is “INCOME” rather than property it would allow the state courts to abide by the law of the state. Since when does the federal government need to be sticking their nose in to divorces? The law is antiquated and needs change or REPEAL.

I have lost my husband because no one will step up and make the necessary changes that benefit the military member. NO ONE SHOULD BE INDEBTED TO A FORMER SPOUSE FOR LIFE!!

What will you do to help?

Sincerely,



Stephanie L. Joyner

USN - Retired
08-06-2010, 06:59 PM
Will the MCPON respond to Stephanie Joyner's letter?

garhkal
08-07-2010, 03:55 AM
Very doubtful
But i love that you sent it in. Quick question. Did you mail it in via a return receipt so you got conformation he got it?

USN - Retired
08-07-2010, 05:33 PM
Very doubtful
But i love that you sent it in. Quick question. Did you mail it in via a return receipt so you got conformation he got it?

The letter wasn't from me, i.e. I am not Stephanie Joyner. I found her letter on another website and posted it here. Perhaps the Navy Times will print Stephanie's letter in their magazine. Stephanie's letter shows that there are women who oppose USFSPA.

garhkal
08-08-2010, 05:37 AM
Ah. My bad. Thought it was you who sent it in..

USN - Retired
09-10-2010, 08:44 PM
Did you know???...

Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1352.1:

a.. Involuntary Order to Active Duty. The Secretary of a Military
Department may order any retired Regular member, retired Reserve member who
has completed at least 20 years of active military service, or a member of
the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve to active duty without the
member's consent at any time to perform duties deemed necessary in the
interests of national defense in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 683 (reference
(b)). This includes the authority to order a retired member who is subject
to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to active duty to facilitate
the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction under Section 302(a) of reference
(b). A retired member may not be involuntarily ordered to active duty solely
for obtaining court-martial jurisdiction over the member.

Shrike
09-10-2010, 09:09 PM
Did you know???...

Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1352.1:

a.. Involuntary Order to Active Duty. The Secretary of a Military
Department may order any retired Regular member, retired Reserve member who
has completed at least 20 years of active military service, or a member of
the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve to active duty without the
member's consent at any time to perform duties deemed necessary in the
interests of national defense in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 683 (reference
(b)). This includes the authority to order a retired member who is subject
to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to active duty to facilitate
the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction under Section 302(a) of reference
(b). A retired member may not be involuntarily ordered to active duty solely
for obtaining court-martial jurisdiction over the member.

How's that related to the USFSPA?

USN - Retired
09-11-2010, 12:57 AM
How's that related to the USFSPA?

A retired military member who is receiving retired military pay may be involuntarily recalled to active duty.

A former military spouse who is receiving retired military pay has no legal obligation whatsoever to the military.

Shrike
09-11-2010, 02:38 AM
A retired military member who is receiving retired military pay may be involuntarily recalled to active duty.

A former military spouse who is receiving retired military pay has no legal obligation whatsoever to the military.

...



...




...




...and???????????????????????????????

USN - Retired
09-11-2010, 03:42 AM
...

...and???????????????????????????????

And....

Given that the retired military service member can be involuntarily recalled to active duty (and sent into combat!) and the former military spouse has no similar legal obligation, why should the states be allowed to divide military retirement income in a divorce, especially after a short marriage with no children?

garhkal
09-11-2010, 04:28 AM
Too true. That just goes to prove that the retirement pay is actually a retainer pay.. ergo why should it ever be considered joint property for divorce.

Shrike
09-11-2010, 12:50 PM
And....

Given that the retired military service member can be involuntarily recalled to active duty (and sent into combat!) and the former military spouse has no similar legal obligation, why should the states be allowed to divide military retirement income in a divorce, especially after a short marriage with no children?
Because the law allows it.

Really, that's the answer.

TJMAC77SP
09-11-2010, 02:35 PM
Because the law allows it.

Really, that's the answer.

It is the law but it illustrates the central pillar of the position that the DoD and specifically the DoD Comptroller took during the bill's consideration (not hearings because there weren't any hearings). The DoD argued (and I have stated it several times here and in other threads) that retired pay is not a typical retirement annuity and should not be considered marital community property. This central difference was ignored in the USFSPA and has continued to be ignored by the courts. It is legal, but that doesn’t make it right.

Shrike
09-11-2010, 03:15 PM
It is the law but it illustrates the central pillar of the position that the DoD and specifically the DoD Comptroller took during the bill's consideration (not hearings because there weren't any hearings). The DoD argued (and I have stated it several times here and in other threads) that retired pay is not a typical retirement annuity and should not be considered marital community property. This central difference was ignored in the USFSPA and has continued to be ignored by the courts. It is legal, but that doesn’t make it right.

I agree 100%.

garhkal
09-12-2010, 07:11 AM
It is the law but it illustrates the central pillar of the position that the DoD and specifically the DoD Comptroller took during the bill's consideration (not hearings because there weren't any hearings). The DoD argued (and I have stated it several times here and in other threads) that retired pay is not a typical retirement annuity and should not be considered marital community property. This central difference was ignored in the USFSPA and has continued to be ignored by the courts. It is legal, but that doesn’t make it right.

Hence why most of us want it repealed..

TJMAC77SP
09-13-2010, 04:13 PM
Hence why most of us want it repealed..

At least rewritten allowing courts to consider evidence as to the spouse's contribution (or lack of contribution) to the overall military career that the retirement pay is being received for. Proof of abandoned career choices. etc. Anything but the blanket decision which the law has become. You can argue all day that the courts are not forced to consider the retirement pay as marital community property but the facts on the ground won't support that assertion. The court looks at the numbers, does the math and bangs the gavel....end of discussion, end of case.

Aperion
09-13-2010, 11:27 PM
It is a very bad law that punishes the military member. My ex did everything to ruin my military career dispite her efforts I did retire and E-7. Her drug habit landed her in jail countless times, and owes me over $15,000 in back child support. She is currently in jail until next year and recieves half of my retirment check like clockwork.

garhkal
09-14-2010, 09:49 AM
I know some who would have willfully NOT retired just to spite the shit out of spouses like that..


At least rewritten allowing courts to consider evidence as to the spouse's contribution (or lack of contribution) to the overall military career that the retirement pay is being received for. Proof of abandoned career choices. etc.

Especially since many of the divorces i know of were cause either
A) she did not want to continually relocate/be without him for deployments. or
B) she made the "its me or the military" speech when it came time to reenlist.

USN - Retired
09-14-2010, 09:02 PM
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution prohibits any person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under the United States from accepting any present, office or title, of any kind whatsoever, from a foreign government without the consent of Congress. That constitutional prohibition applies to retired members of our military. As a result, the comptroller General has permitted DFAS to withhold military retirement income in an amount equal to the payments received from a foreign government if the retired military service member accepts employment from a foreign government without the consent of Congress . That restriction clearly demonstrates that retired military service members must accept certain obligations and restrictions in order to receive military retirement income. Interestingly, no such obligation and no such restriction exists for those former military spouses who are receiving military retirement income as part of a divorce decree.

This begs the question as to how, under the law, can military retirement income be considered an equitably distributable asset or community property when the military service member must accept certain obligations and restrictions in order to receive the military retirement income, yet the former military spouse does NOT have to accept those same obligations and restrictions in order to receive the military retirement income ?

http://www.turbotap.org/portal/transition/lifestyles/Employment_Restrictions_After_Leaving_DoD/Additional_Restrictions_for_Retired_Military_Perso nnel_and_Reservists

netter8848
12-20-2010, 12:13 AM
A former spouse in my opinion should not be allowed any percentage of the retirement. Can I reach out and touch her retirement from a civilian source? No I cannot. It is income not property. Solution, to be eligible for any retirement the former spouse should have to prove the divorce was caused by the service member. Deployments and service do not count on that as it is Army directed. If the service member was unfaithful or abusive then yeah he/she earned it and that member deserves to lose it. Other than that it is a rule made by a lawmaker that got bedded down with somebodys wife/husband and wanted some cash.
Not only should the former spouse have to prove that the divorce was caused by the service member, the spouse should have to prove that they were SUPPORTIVE of the service member's career! My ex bitched and bitched and bitched. If I had to work late, he bitched. If I had to go TDY, he bitched. He made my life miserable, because I did what I signed up to do. For almost 20 years, he bitched and bitched about my military commitments, never participated in holiday parties, Dining Outs, any unit functions. And he should get half of my retirement? I don't think so. He didn't, I retired with disability, but oh, he so could have!

garhkal
12-20-2010, 09:11 AM
Agreed. Heck a good chunk of the mil divorcees i know were CAUSE spoussy said
"Its either me or the mil. You go on one more TDY/Deployment/PCS/Extension/Reenlistment i am divorcing your butt"

garhkal
12-20-2010, 09:11 AM
Agreed. Heck a good chunk of the mil divorcees i know were CAUSE spoussy said
"Its either me or the mil. You go on one more TDY/Deployment/PCS/Extension/Reenlistment i am divorcing your butt"

zephyr243
03-11-2011, 05:42 PM
Hi I have sent letters to law makers, signed online petitions and argued with DFAS. Attached is the letter I sent to Boehner and the other so called veterans rights congressmen/women. If we cannot repeal it lets reform it to a fair law. I don't mind paying for my divorce but this legislature is a life sentence without appeal.

Congressman Lungren,


I know you are supportive of small business and veterans issues. I was hoping you could reintroduce reforms to the USFSPA.
A PETITION REQUESTING LEGISLATIVE REFORM OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES FORMER SPOUSES PROTECTION ACT (USFSPA), PUBLIC LAW 97-252, 10 USC 1408 is being circulated.

These reforms would provide relief of those tens of thousands of members of the Uniformed Services already impacted by, as well as those potentially vulnerable to, the Uniformed Services FormerSpouses Protection Act (USFSPA); Public Law 97-252; 10 USC 1408 et.seq.

I believe that the USFSPA discriminates against members of the Uniformed Services who become divorced by subjecting them to mandates for the distribution of marital assets not applicable to other government employees (including members of Congress) and private citizens of the United States. This is inimical to the guarantee of equal justice under law provided by the constitution.

Unlike their contemporaries in the civilian sector, retired members of the Uniformed Services must meet, for life, certain obligations to their 'former employer,' while the ex-spouses, who share these benefits, share none of the obligations. Moreover, by a series of remarriages, an ex-spouse may qualify for USFSPA payments from multiple sources while a succession of Uniformed Services retirees remain indentured to their former spouses for life, this is a life sentence for one divorce/mistake. There are no time limits on when the ex-spouse can file for these payments either. It can be 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, and they still qualify for payments for life.In the civilian sector the spouse has only one bite at the apple the USFSPA gives them the right to eat from the whole apple tree. I know veterans on public assistance (food stamps or other public payments) and their spouses have a thriving career still recieving 50% of the veterans retirement for life.

Individuals married to members of the Uniformed Services have available to them, in divorce court, all the remedies available to their contemporaries in the civilian sector. While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the retired pay of members of the Uniformed Services has none of the characteristics of marital property, there is no legal prohibition of its use as a source of alimony and child support. I have no objection to its use in those roles, but do strongly object to its award for life, even if the benefiting ex-spouse remarries.

I believe that USFSPA payments should be based on the rank/rate/pay grade at the time of divorce, that the disability pay of the member should be protected in a divorce action, and that there should be a statute of limitations on the time allotted to claim benefits under the USFSPA during a divorce.

'Reform' of the USFSPA is the least that congress can do. Here is what my fellow veterans and I envision the language to be:
1. Quantified the share of retired pay payable to former spouses. Provided a formula based on (i) years of marriage while the member was qualifying for retired pay; (ii) time credited for retired pay. Applied to divorces occurring before or after enactment. Provided an exception for voluntary spousal agreements.
2. Limited the duration of payments.
For divorces occurring after enactment:
Where the time married while the member was on active duty (or, in the case of reserve/National Guard, was earning retirement points) was less than 20 years, payments would be made for the number of years married while the member was qualifying for retired pay, or, until the former spouse remarried, whichever occurred first.
Where the time married while the member was on active duty was 20 years or more, payments would continue until the death of the member or former spouse, whichever occurs first. ·
For divorces occurring before enactment:
If the length of the marriage while the member was on active duty was less than 20 years, payments would continue for the length of the marriage while the member was on active duty.
If payments had already been made for the number of years of marriage while the member was on active duty, payments would continue until two years after enactment and then end.
If the payment period ended within two years of enactment, payments would continue until the end of the two-year period after enactment.
If the length of the marriage while the member was on active duty was 20 years or more, payments would continue until the death of the member or former spouse, whichever occurred first.
3. Windfall benefit. Eliminated the "windfall benefit" but applied only to court orders issued after date of enactment (prospective application only).
4. Statute of limitations. Provided a two-year statute of limitations, applying only to court orders issued after date of enactment (prospective application only). However, courts would be prohibited from ordering payments in arrears for more than two years.
5. Protection of disability pay. Absolute prohibition against payment of disability pay to former spouses, including garnishment under the Social Security Act, of VA disability compensation received in lieu of waived retired pay. (Child support excepted).

Sincerely,

garhkal
03-12-2011, 07:43 AM
Nice.. Personally i would love to send this to all those 'senators and representatives that AFN loved to show on TV over the xmas hol's saying that they "Do all they can to help us valued military personnel out'... and see if they really put their money where their mouth is..

sherrylabtec
07-11-2013, 10:32 PM
Not only should the former spouse have to prove that the divorce was caused by the service member, the spouse should have to prove that they were SUPPORTIVE of the service member's career! My ex bitched and bitched and bitched. If I had to work late, he bitched. If I had to go TDY, he bitched. He made my life miserable, because I did what I signed up to do. For almost 20 years, he bitched and bitched about my military commitments, never participated in holiday parties, Dining Outs, any unit functions. And he should get half of my retirement? I don't think so. He didn't, I retired with disability, but oh, he so could have!



I was married to my husband for 30 years, and I loved him very much but during that time he was gone most of it, to duty stations I could not go, he cheated, had an child out of wedlock and then on Feb 14th( he had retired in November) he said he wanted a divorce. He was seeing women on the side while I was at work and paying the household bills and buying the groceries and anything he wanted. I did everything to hold my marriage together, not out of wanting money, but because I loved him. So to say I didn't earn that money...I gave up my career in the navy, paid my way by working and paying household bills and I was rewarded with the loss my home and most everything else because he had a better lawyer and had to start from scratch. So, it rubs both ways...

TJMAC77SP
07-13-2013, 12:25 AM
I was married to my husband for 30 years, and I loved him very much but during that time he was gone most of it, to duty stations I could not go, he cheated, had an child out of wedlock and then on Feb 14th( he had retired in November) he said he wanted a divorce. He was seeing women on the side while I was at work and paying the household bills and buying the groceries and anything he wanted. I did everything to hold my marriage together, not out of wanting money, but because I loved him. So to say I didn't earn that money...I gave up my career in the navy, paid my way by working and paying household bills and I was rewarded with the loss my home and most everything else because he had a better lawyer and had to start from scratch. So, it rubs both ways...

It does but unfortunately the way the law is written a military member whose spouse behaves in the manner yours did still gets part of the military member's retirement and that is the crux of the problem. Not that it shouldn't happen but a judge should hear testimony as to behavior and chances lost because of the civilian spouse's life with her/his military member. The pay (and it is pay not a pension annuity) is paid for a minimum of 20 years faithful and honorable service. Payment to any party should be subject to the same conditions.

(go ahead MM).

Measure Man
07-13-2013, 02:11 AM
The pay (and it is pay not a pension annuity) is paid for a minimum of 20 years faithful and honorable service.
(go ahead MM).

Okay...

Let's start with a simple one:

If it were pay why do you get a 1099-R and not a W-2?

USN - Retired
07-13-2013, 03:55 AM
Okay...

Let's start with a simple one:

If it were pay why do you get a 1099-R and not a W-2?


My favorite subject!!!!

All of the long term forum members must have known that this discussion would quickly bring me out of the woodwork.
and you're right MM - Military retirees should get a W-2 instead of a 1099-r.

Now for my simple questions...

If my military retirement pay is a property, then where will that property of mine go when I die? When I die, will my military retirement pay then be sent via direct deposit to a bank in Heaven?

If military retirement pay is a property, then why does the former military spouse stop receiving her property (i.e., her cut of the military retirement income) when her ex-hubby dies (assuming SBP was not granted in the divorce)?

If military retirement pay is community property, then why are social security retirement payments not community property?

And here is an oldie but a goodie... A military service member must serve 20 years in order to receive military retirement income. Why can a military spouse receive a lifetime share of that military retirement income even though she was married to a military service member for considerably less than 20 years?

Now for a very serious issue...

I am sure that a large number of civilian family court judges never served in the military and may know little, if anything, about the military. Why do we assume that those civilian judges, with their little knowledge of the military, will be able to fairly divide military retirement pay? If we are going to call military retirement pay a property and allow a civilian family court judge to divide that so-called property, then we need to have a law, a federal law, that provides the family court with some guidance on how to fairly divide that property. A federal law is needed because military retirement pay is a federal pay, and we want the family courts to divide that federal pay in a consistent manner.

Now for my proposal...

Here's an idea... Let's treat everyone fairly in a divorce court. We don't want to be unfair to the military service member, and we also don't want to be unfair to the soon-to-be former military spouse. So here's my proposal to treat everyone fairly...

1. If a military spouse has been married to a military service member for less than 6 years, then the military spouse will be awarded none of the military retirement pay in a divorce.

2. If a military spouse has been married to a military service member for more than 6 years, but less than 19 years, then the military spouse will be awarded a lump sum of the military retirement pay. The military's involuntary separation pay tables will be used to calculate her lump sum.

The link for the involuntary separation pay tables is here. (http://projects.militarytimes.com/pay-charts/2013/involuntary_separation/)

For example, let's say that the wife of an O-5 divorces her husband and she will have been married for 16 years at the time of the divorce. Her share of the military retirement pay will be $151,586. Of note: The former spouse's lump sum share of the retirement will be based on her hubby's rank at the time of the divorce; not at the time of his retirement. The O-5 can pay that amount directly to his ex-wife or pay it through an allotment (with interest) from his military retirement pay. Of course, the allotment must be a fair percentage of his military retirement pay.

3. If a military spouse has been married to a military service member for 19 years or more, then the military spouse will be awarded 50% of the military retirement pay for life.

Note: those years of marriage only include the years of marriage during which the service member performed creditable military service. For example, let's say a woman marries a military service member and the military service member then retires from the military a year after their wedding. 20 years later, the couple divorce. The woman would receive none of the military retirement pay since she was only married for one year during her hubby's military career and she would fall under the "less than 6 years" category above.

Is that proposal fair? If not, then why not? Is seems that my idea would provide fairness to military service members and also former military spouses like sherrylabtec

I'll tell you who will be adamantly opposed to my idea - the divorce lawyers. Divorce lawyers make a lot of money arguing over how to divide military retirement income. USFSPA in its current form is often described as the lawyers' playground. My idea will significantly reduce the billable hours charged by the divorce lawyers.

mel44
07-13-2013, 04:12 AM
USN :banana: My very most favorite he man woman hater!!!!!! How you been?

Measure Man
07-13-2013, 04:20 AM
My favorite subject!!!!

All of the long term forum members must have known that this discussion would quickly bring me out of the woodwork.
and you're right MM - Military retirees should get a W-2 instead of a 1099-r.


Thanks.


Now for my simple questions...

If military retirement pay is a property, then why does the former military spouse stop receiving her property (i.e., her cut of the military retirement income) when her ex-hubby dies (assuming SBP was not granted in the divorce)?

Hmmm...very similar to an annuity again. If you buy an annuity, generally speaking, that annuity stops paying when you die an no one else gets it. Yes, there are some different annuities out there that do transfer to a beneficiary, but generally no. Would you say this means that if you purchase an annuity it is therefore pay an not property? Hint: no.


If military retirement pay is community property, then why are social security retirement payments not community property?

Because military retirement is not social security and social security is not military retirement.

When you were active duty...did you have a deduction for on your LES for the military retirement system? Did that deduction go to pay current retirees?

No...they are different programs, not related in any way.


And here is an oldie but a goodie... A military service member must serve 20 years in order to receive military retirement income. Why can a military spouse receive a lifetime share of that military retirement income even though she was married to a military service member for considerably less than 20 years?

Again...we can find other parallels out there. Often, a union member must have 5 or 10 years vested vested to be eligible for a union pension. That pension is divisibile as property regardless of the length of marriage.


Now for a very serious issue...

I am sure that a large number of civilian family court judges never served in the military and may know little, if anything, about the military. Why do we assume that those civilian judges, with their little knowledge of the military, will be able to fairly divide military retirement pay? If we are going to call military retirement pay a property and allow a civilian family court judge to divide that so-called property, then we need to have a law, a federal law, that provides the family court with some guidance on how to fairly divide that property. A federal law is needed because military retirement pay is a federal pay, and we want the family courts to divide that federal pay in a consistent manner.

Many judges were never doctors...how can they fairly divide a doctor's pay? Many were not musicians, how can they fairly divide royalty and intellectual property rights? Many judges were never in the UAW Union...how can they...blah blah blah.

Judges know the law...laws govern all these things.

Or, do you think judges should only be able to rule on the divorces of lawyers and judges


Now for my proposal...

Here's an idea... Let's treat everyone fairly in a divorce court. We don't want to be unfair to the military service member, and we also don't want to be unfair to the soon-to-be former military spouse. So here's my proposal to treat everyone fairly...

1. If a military spouse has been married to a military service member for less than 6 years, then the military spouse will be awarded none of the military retirement pay in a divorce.

2. If a military spouse has been married to a military service member for more than 6 years, but less than 19 years, then the military spouse will be awarded a lump sum of the military retirement pay. The military's involuntary separation pay tables will be used to calculate her lump sum.

The link for the involuntary separation pay tables is here. (http://projects.militarytimes.com/pay-charts/2013/involuntary_separation/)

For example, let's say that the wife of an O-5 divorces her husband and she will have been married for 16 years at the time of the divorce. Her share of the military retirement pay will be $151,586. Of note: The former spouse's lump sum share of the retirement will be based on her hubby's rank at the time of the divorce; not at the time of his retirement. The O-5 can pay that amount directly to his ex-wife or pay it through an allotment (with interest) from his military retirement pay. Of course, the allotment must be a fair percentage of his military retirement pay.

3. If a military spouse has been married to a military service member for 19 years or more, then the military spouse will be awarded 50% of the military retirement pay for life.

Note: those years of marriage only include the years of marriage during which the service member performed creditable military service. For example, let's say a woman marries a military service member and the military service member then retires from the military a year after their wedding. 20 years later, the couple divorce. The woman would receive none of the military retirement pay since she was only married for one year during her hubby's military career and she would fall under the "less than 6 years" category above.

Is that proposal fair? If not, then why not? Is seems that my idea would provide fairness to military service members and also former military spouses like sherrylabtec

I'll tell you who will be adamantly opposed to my idea - the divorce lawyers. Divorce lawyers make a lot of money arguing over how to divide military retirement income. USFSPA in its current form is often described as the lawyers' playground. My idea will significantly reduce the billable hours charged by the divorce lawyers.

I like your idea 100%...I've advocated for a long time that there should be a table of "equivalent value" based on a members years and rank at the time of divorce to enable a lump sum payment...protecting both the servicemember from paying for his future promotion and advancement. And protecting the spouse from the members future misconduct, etc.

USN - Retired
07-13-2013, 04:40 AM
Because military retirement is not social security and social security is not military retirement.

No...they are different programs, not related in any way..

Nice dodge of the point that I made. So I'll ask the question again.

Why are social security retirement payments not community property?




Many judges were never doctors...how can they fairly divide a doctor's pay? Many were not musicians, how can they fairly divide royalty and intellectual property rights? ..

The judges almost certainly don't divide the pay fairly.


Judges know the law...laws govern all these things.

.

USFSPA is a law that is really bad. It needs to be changed.

Laws in our country used to govern slavery. That doesn't mean that slavery was right simply because it was legal.

USN - Retired
07-13-2013, 04:43 AM
I like your idea 100%...

Thank you. It is always nice to find a point of agreement.

mel44
07-13-2013, 04:59 AM
Pussies... hmmmmm well some things have changed just dropped by to give some love... Hope everyone is doing well and their families are well - Take care

TSgt"M"
07-13-2013, 05:08 AM
I had a ex that left after 9 years of marriage, probably 12 years AD. Luckily I waited her out. I wouldn't sign and she was wanting to marry (again) to a bigger money bag than me. She finally signed off of my mil ret. I was young enough to probably bale if she would have been awarded it. Didn't get married again until about 18 1/2 years AD because of this. (Shhhhh ,Don't tell my current wife)

Measure Man
07-13-2013, 02:17 PM
Nice dodge of the point that I made. So I'll ask the question again.

Why are social security retirement payments not community property?.

Maybe they should be.

Rainmaker
07-13-2013, 06:24 PM
I was married to my husband for 30 years, and I loved him very much but during that time he was gone most of it, to duty stations I could not go, he cheated, had an child out of wedlock and then on Feb 14th( he had retired in November) he said he wanted a divorce. He was seeing women on the side while I was at work and paying the household bills and buying the groceries and anything he wanted. I did everything to hold my marriage together, not out of wanting money, but because I loved him. So to say I didn't earn that money...I gave up my career in the navy, paid my way by working and paying household bills and I was rewarded with the loss my home and most everything else because he had a better lawyer and had to start from scratch. So, it rubs both ways...

Sherry, you are people the law was supposed to be intended for. Now if what you say is true than either you married a shit bird or you should've done a little bit more rubbing. Rainmaker biggest gripe with this misapplied law is that it doesn't take into account fault. Rainmaker dies a little inside errytime he see that monthly deduction titled "Former Spouses Protection Act" written on his monthly retirement statement.

Measure Man
07-13-2013, 07:05 PM
Sherry, you are people the law was supposed to be intended for. Now if what you say is true than either you married a shit bird or you should've done a little bit more rubbing. Rainmaker biggest gripe with this misapplied law is that it doesn't take into account fault. Rainmaker dies a little inside errytime he see that monthly deduction titled "Former Spouses Protection Act" written on his monthly retirement statement.

What would you like the law to say?

garhkal
07-13-2013, 07:29 PM
USFSPA is a law that is really bad. It needs to be changed.
.

Just like the voting rights act law. the SC feels it needs to get redone to reflect current times, so too should the USFSPA.


Maybe they should be.

I feel all pensions/retirements etc either should ALL be considered communal property or none should be.


Sherry, you are people the law was supposed to be intended for. Now if what you say is true than either you married a shit bird or you should've done a little bit more rubbing. Rainmaker biggest gripe with this misapplied law is that it doesn't take into account fault. Rainmaker dies a little inside errytime he see that monthly deduction titled "Former Spouses Protection Act" written on his monthly retirement statement.

Yup. your "former spouse's" infidelity can be the reason you divorce, but that matters NOT to the FSPA.

USN - Retired
07-13-2013, 07:44 PM
Maybe they should be.

Or perhaps military retirement pay should not be community property...
Don't not forget that option....


When you were active duty...did you have a deduction for on your LES for the military retirement system?

I did not. You are correct on that point. Very correct. And it appears that you have also proved conclusively that military retirement is not community property since it is not a contributory plan, i.e. money earned during the marriage was not used to finance the military retirement.

Interestingly, social security is a contributory plan, yet social security retirement pay is not considered community property.

For example, let's say that a husband and wife were married for 9 years and then divorce. The man worked and the woman stayed home during the marriage. The man contributed to social security during that marriage. The woman can not claim the man's future social security retirement income as community property even though the man used money earned during their marriage to finance his social security account. Now if the couple had been married for more than 10 years, the ex-wife can get social security retirement pay based on her ex-husband's contributions to social security, but the social security pay received by the ex-wife is not deducted from the man's social security retirement income.

Additionally, the ex-wife will lose the right to get social security retirement pay based on her ex-husband's contributions to social security if she marries another man after her divorce.

Interestingly, military service is somehow considered to be a property of the marriage, yet a college degree earned during marriage is not. For example, let's say that a civilian woman married a military service member and the military service member put his wife through medical school during their marraige. The wife then divorced her hubby after she became a doctor. The wife can claim partial ownership of her hubby's military retirement income, yet the hubby can not claim any ownership of his wife's medical degree. Show me the fairness there.

TSgt"M"
07-13-2013, 10:07 PM
Interestingly, military service is somehow considered to be a property of the marriage, yet a college degree earned during marriage is not. For example, let's say that a civilian woman married a military service member and the military service member put gh medical school during their marraige. The wife then divorced her hubby after she became a doctor. The wife can claim partial ownership of her hubby's military retirement income, yet the hubby can not claim any ownership of his wife's medical degree. Show me the fairness there.

Good Point! My ex had a Computer Science Degree, that I paid for almost half. She wouldn't use it until after the divorce.

Measure Man
07-13-2013, 11:55 PM
I had a ex that left after 9 years of marriage, probably 12 years AD. Luckily I waited her out. I wouldn't sign and she was wanting to marry (again) to a bigger money bag than me. She finally signed off of my mil ret. I was young enough to probably bale if she would have been awarded it. Didn't get married again until about 18 1/2 years AD because of this. (Shhhhh ,Don't tell my current wife)

So, to clarify, the USFSPA did not automatically award your former spouse any part of your retirement.


Just like the voting rights act law. the SC feels it needs to get redone to reflect current times, so too should the USFSPA.

No-fault divorces are much more common now than they were.


I feel all pensions/retirements etc either should ALL be considered communal property or none should be.

I'm pretty sure nearly all are...but, don't know for sure.

Something to keep in mind...the USFSPA does not require military retirement to be treated as property...it gives the states the option to do so and means to enforce it.


Yup. your "former spouse's" infidelity can be the reason you divorce, but that matters NOT to the FSPA.

That's up to the court to decide. The USFSPA merely gives the courts the option to award or not award military retirement.

TJMAC77SP
07-14-2013, 03:19 AM
Okay...

Let's start with a simple one:

If it were pay why do you get a 1099-R and not a W-2?

Not sure and not sure of the relevance of the question.

DFAS calls it retired pay and when I was a self employed consultant I received a 1099. Does that help?

Measure Man
07-14-2013, 03:20 AM
Not sure and not sure of the relevance of the question.

DFAS calls it retired pay and when I was a self employed consultant I received a 1099. Does that help?

A 1099-R?

File Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., for each person to whom you have made a designated distribution or are treated as having made a distribution of $10 or more from profit-sharing or retirement plans, any individual retirement arrangements (IRAs), annuities, pensions, insurance contracts, survivor income benefit plans, permanent and total disability payments under life insurance contracts, charitable gift annuities, etc.

TSgt"M"
07-14-2013, 03:53 AM
Originally Posted by TSgt"M"
I had a ex that left after 9 years of marriage, probably 12 years AD. Luckily I waited her out. I wouldn't sign and she was wanting to marry (again) to a bigger money bag than me. She finally signed off of my mil ret. I was young enough to probably bale if she would have been awarded it. Didn't get married again until about 18 1/2 years AD because of this. (Shhhhh ,Don't tell my current wife)

So, to clarify, the USFSPA did not automatically award your former spouse any part of your retirement.

Nope

garhkal
07-14-2013, 06:21 AM
Interestingly, military service is somehow considered to be a property of the marriage, yet a college degree earned during marriage is not. For example, let's say that a civilian woman married a military service member and the military service member put his wife through medical school during their marraige. The wife then divorced her hubby after she became a doctor. The wife can claim partial ownership of her hubby's military retirement income, yet the hubby can not claim any ownership of his wife's medical degree. Show me the fairness there.

To me if he (or she) used her GI bill to send the other to college to get that degree it bloody well should be 'communal' property.


Something to keep in mind...the USFSPA does not require military retirement to be treated as property...it gives the states the option to do so and means to enforce it.

Required no, but that is how i have seen most states view it.

USN - Retired
07-14-2013, 07:34 AM
Okay...

Let's start with a simple one:

If it were pay why do you get a 1099-R and not a W-2?

Social security retirement benefits are reported to the taxpayer on Form SSA-1099. Social security retirement benefits are not community property.

USN - Retired
07-14-2013, 08:22 AM
Something to keep in mind...the USFSPA does not require military retirement to be treated as property...it gives the states the option to do so and means to enforce it.

That post of MM reminds me of a VERY old post that I recently discovered on this forum...


Something to keep in mind...the US Constitution does not require black people to be treated as property...it gives the states the option to do so and means to enforce it.

That poster was a West Point grad and he posted that comment on this forum back in the year 1860. Yes, this forum has been around for quite a while.

I'm not saying that MM condones slavery, but it does seem that he and Jefferson Davis do see eye-to-eye on the concept of states' rights.

My question to both MM and Jefferson Davis - Does the concept of states' rights give the states the right to violate a person's civil rights? Slavery is obviously a violation of a person's civil rights. Allowing a family court judge to redistribute property, money and future income in a divorce is also a violation of civil rights. USFSPA is a violation of the civil rights of military service members. A family court judge shouldn't have the power to take property, money and future income that belongs to one spouse and give it to another spouse, especially in this day and age. The only reasonable exception is child support payments. The family court judges have way too much power and they have demonstrated time and again that they will abuse that power.

TJMAC77SP
07-14-2013, 05:52 PM
A 1099-R?

File Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., for each person to whom you have made a designated distribution or are treated as having made a distribution of $10 or more from profit-sharing or retirement plans, any individual retirement arrangements (IRAs), annuities, pensions, insurance contracts, survivor income benefit plans, permanent and total disability payments under life insurance contracts, charitable gift annuities, etc.

Ah, I see. It is called Retirement Pay so the third option covers it. My real point was that there is a lot of types of income which does not entail a W-2 being issued.

Measure Man
07-14-2013, 10:21 PM
Ah, I see. It is called Retirement Pay so the third option covers it. My real point was that there is a lot of types of income which does not entail a W-2 being issued.

I believe it says distributions, not pay.

Yes, there are a lot of types of income not reported on W-2, but the 1099-R is for retirement-type distributions.

Measure Man
07-14-2013, 10:24 PM
Social security retirement benefits are reported to the taxpayer on Form SSA-1099. Social security retirement benefits are not community property.

The significance of the 1099-R is not whether or not it is community property...it was responding to TJ's "this is pay, not a retirement annuity, etc"

That it is distributed on a 1099-R shows, at least the IRS, considers it more like a retirement annuity than they do wages, pay, etc.

Still waiting if he has a source that it is pay...and also curious as to what the significance of that is.

Measure Man
07-14-2013, 10:25 PM
3. If a military spouse has been married to a military service member for 19 years or more, then the military spouse will be awarded 50% of the military retirement pay for life..

Hmmmm...just relooking at this.

so, your plan is that if they are married 19 durings, during which time the spouse does not work, has multiple affairs, calls the first sergeant everytime he goes TDY...that she should automatically get 50% of his retirement?

USN - Retired
07-14-2013, 11:45 PM
Hmmmm...just relooking at this.

so, your plan is that if they are married 19 durings, during which time the spouse does not work, has multiple affairs, calls the first sergeant everytime he goes TDY...that she should automatically get 50% of his retirement?

Great question. Here's what I would like.

As much as possible, the family court would not be involved with marriages and divorce. In a divorce, all property that is legally titled as joint property, would be divided in half. Houses, land, bank accounts that are jointly owned is joint property. Divide them in half. If there is no legal paperwork that says the property is jointly owned, then it is not jointly owned. Unless the military spouse can show some paperwork, such as a prenuptial agreement, that the military retirement income is jointly owned, then it is not jointly owned. Divorce would be simple and the divorce lawyers would starve.

None of that will ever happen. It just won't happen. My plan would deprive all the slimy divorce lawyers with a means to make lots of money. They would most certainly fight my plan.

So let's take a minute to review my plan/proposal to modify USFSPA


1. If a military spouse has been married to a military service member for less than 6 years, then the military spouse will be awarded none of the military retirement pay in a divorce.

2. If a military spouse has been married to a military service member for more than 6 years, but less than 19 years, then the military spouse will be awarded a lump sum of the military retirement pay. The military's involuntary separation pay tables will be used to calculate her lump sum.

For example, let's say that the wife of an O-5 divorces her husband and she will have been married for 16 years at the time of the divorce. Her share of the military retirement pay will be $151,586. Of note: The former spouse's lump sum share of the retirement will be based on her hubby's rank at the time of the divorce; not at the time of his retirement. The O-5 can pay that amount directly to his ex-wife or pay it through an allotment (with interest) from his military retirement pay. Of course, the allotment must be a fair percentage of his military retirement pay.

3. If a military spouse has been married to a military service member for 19 years or more, then the military spouse will be awarded 50% of the military retirement pay for life.

Note: those years of marriage only include the years of marriage during which the service member performed creditable military service. For example, let's say a woman marries a military service member and the military service member then retires from the military a year after their wedding. 20 years later, the couple divorce. The woman would receive none of the military retirement pay since she was only married for one year during her hubby's military career and she would fall under the "less than 6 years" category above.

Aspects of my plan do stink; however, I do believe that my plan is a fair comprise between the military service member and the military spouse. It provides financial protection to a military service member who was in a short term marriage, it also provides financial protection to a military spouse who was in a long term marriage, and it deprives the divorce lawyers of an opportunity to make a lot of money.

so back to your original question...


Hmmmm...just relooking at this.
so, your plan is that if they are married 19 durings, during which time the spouse does not work, has multiple affairs, calls the first sergeant everytime he goes TDY...that she should automatically get 50% of his retirement?

Yes. That aspect of my plan stinks, but yes. Under the current system, she will almost certainly get it anyway. If the military spouse was really that bad, then the military service member should have divorced her sooner.

I believe that my plan is a fair comprise and I challenge all forum readers, especially from the military spouse community, to show me how my plan/proposal is unfair.

USN - Retired
07-14-2013, 11:46 PM
Because military retirement is not social security and social security is not military retirement.
When you were active duty...did you have a deduction for on your LES for the military retirement system? Did that deduction go to pay current retirees?
No...they are different programs, not related in any way.

If we shouldn't compare military retirement income with social security retirement income, then why should we compare military retirement income with a pension plan from a civilian company?

garhkal
07-15-2013, 05:51 AM
Cause they are effectively the same thing.. Both are pays for your service.

Rainmaker
08-03-2013, 04:31 PM
What would you like the law to say?

Rainmaker would like the law to say: [inappropriate content deleted]

TJMAC77SP
08-05-2013, 12:10 PM
I believe it says distributions, not pay.

Yes, there are a lot of types of income not reported on W-2, but the 1099-R is for retirement-type distributions.

Actually it is referred to as pay (http://www.dfas.mil/retiredmilitary.html)several times.

So what was your point specifically?

TJMAC77SP
08-05-2013, 12:12 PM
The significance of the 1099-R is not whether or not it is community property...it was responding to TJ's "this is pay, not a retirement annuity, etc"

That it is distributed on a 1099-R shows, at least the IRS, considers it more like a retirement annuity than they do wages, pay, etc.

Still waiting if he has a source that it is pay...and also curious as to what the significance of that is.

Responded and exactly how does "....the IRS, considers it more like..." prove any point?

All that proves is that the IRS doesn't see that need to create a completely different form for military retired pay. Since they have no interest in anything unrelated to the collection of income taxes and the 1099-R fits their purpose they use it. I would say that is what your example proves.

Measure Man
08-05-2013, 04:06 PM
Actually it is referred to as pay (http://www.dfas.mil/retiredmilitary.html)several times.

So what was your point specifically?

Perhaps I jumped the gun...when you said "this is not an annuity, it is pay"...I thought you were going on the old rant about how military retirement is pay for continued service or something like people used to argue about.

So, maybe I'm not sure what your original point was in saying "this is pay"...I assumed that's where you were going.


Responded and exactly how does "....the IRS, considers it more like..." prove any point?

All that proves is that the IRS doesn't see that need to create a completely different form for military retired pay. Since they have no interest in anything unrelated to the collection of income taxes and the 1099-R fits their purpose they use it. I would say that is what your example proves.

Nevermind...I assumed an argument you didn't make.

Okay...it is pay. Pay that is divisible as property...not entirely unfairly as a concept, IMO. But, of course, many anectdotal stories about how it was unfairly divided are forthcoming.

So, I guess my only point is that IRS doesn't consider it wages, but rather a pension. Nearly every other pension as far as I know, is also divisible by the courts. A little known fact, military penson was actually diivisible prior to UFSPA as well...this law merely gave a vehicle to enforce aand cleared up some confusion.

TJMAC77SP
08-05-2013, 04:24 PM
Perhaps I jumped the gun...when you said "this is not an annuity, it is pay"...I thought you were going on the old rant about how military retirement is pay for continued service or something like people used to argue about.

So, maybe I'm not sure what your original point was in saying "this is pay"...I assumed that's where you were going.



Nevermind...I assumed an argument you didn't make.

Okay...it is pay. Pay that is divisible as property...not entirely unfairly as a concept, IMO. But, of course, many anectdotal stories about how it was unfairly divided are forthcoming.

So, I guess my only point is that IRS doesn't consider it wages, but rather a pension. Nearly every other pension as far as I know, is also divisible by the courts. A little known fact, military penson was actually diivisible prior to UFSPA as well...this law merely gave a vehicle to enforce aand cleared up some confusion.

Ok, got it.

Actually ANYTHING of value can be and could always be considered divisible (unless specifically prohibited by law) by a court. Whether or not it would stand depended on laws and application. While the old chestnut that it doesn't mandate the division of a military pension facts on the ground illuminate that is exactly what it does. Most local judges don't know enough about military retired pay to weigh in intelligently (and most lawyers are in the same condition) so the path of least resistance (the law allows division) is chosen.

BTW: Is there any other pay that is divisible?

Measure Man
08-05-2013, 04:38 PM
Ok, got it.

Actually ANYTHING of value can be and could always be considered divisible (unless specifically prohibited by law) by a court. Whether or not it would stand depended on laws and application.

Right, but future wages generally are not. So, when someone starts making the "it's pay" argument, that is usually where it goes. Again, you never said that, I made assumptions that you were going there.


While the old chestnut that it doesn't mandate the division of a military pension facts on the ground illuminate that is exactly what it does. Most local judges don't know enough about military retired pay to weigh in intelligently (and most lawyers are in the same condition) so the path of least resistance (the law allows division) is chosen.

I dunno...I know several who haven't had their retired pay divided. I would say in most cases, dividing retired pay is the fair thing to do, which is why it is frequently done.


BTW: Is there any other pay that is divisible?

Other pensions
Royalties
Tax refund payments
I'm sure there are dozens more.

USN - Retired
08-05-2013, 07:35 PM
I thought you were going on the old rant about how military retirement is pay for continued service or something like people used to argue about..

People still argue about that point. It is still a valid point


Nearly every other pension as far as I know, is also divisible by the courts.

Social security is not divisible in a divorce.


A little known fact, military penson was actually diivisible prior to UFSPA as well...this law merely gave a vehicle to enforce aand cleared up some confusion.

We could also say that the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, which allowed state-sponsored segregation in public education, also cleared up some confusion, but that doesn't mean that the Plessy v. Ferguson decision was a good and fair decision.

The problem with USFSPA is that it is not a good and fair law. The law is heavily biased in favor of the military spouse, and it provides practically no protection to military service members, especially those military service members who were in short term marriages.

The family court system in our country is the cesspool of our legal system. Men are often the victims of appalling civil rights violations in the family courts. The egregious redistribution of wealth in divorce cases is just one of many civil rights violations commonly found in family courts. Family court judges, the lowest caste of judges in our country, have way too much power, and they have proven time and again that they will abuse that power.

USFSPA needs to be rewritten in a way that will ensure both the military spouse and the military service member will be treated fairly in a divorce. The family court judges need more direction and guidance. They don't want it, but they certainly do need it.

TJMAC77SP
08-05-2013, 07:43 PM
Right, but future wages generally are not. So, when someone starts making the "it's pay" argument, that is usually where it goes. Again, you never said that, I made assumptions that you were going there.



I dunno...I know several who haven't had their retired pay divided. I would say in most cases, dividing retired pay is the fair thing to do, which is why it is frequently done.



Other pensions
Royalties
Tax refund payments
I'm sure there are dozens more.

I have never even heard of someone whose retired pay wasn't divided if asked for in a divorce proceeding. Weird since I have always had a high interest in this law (even when it didn't look like it would effect me).

Pay, I was specifically asking about pay. I don't mean that payments like child support and alimony must be paid to an ex spouse but are there any aspects of someone's pay being essentially garnished at some specified amount or percentage. I personally know of no such incidence. The examples you gave me aren't pay.

USN - Retired
08-05-2013, 07:49 PM
I dunno...I know several who haven't had their retired pay divided. .

And many of those military service members probably had to give up many assets (house, cars, bank accounts, etc) in the divorce in order to keep their military retirement pay.

If a military spouse REALLY wants to get part of the military retirement pay in a divorce, then she will almost certainly get it, especially in community property states.

Measure Man
08-05-2013, 08:31 PM
I have never even heard of someone whose retired pay wasn't divided if asked for in a divorce proceeding. Weird since I have always had a high interest in this law (even when it didn't look like it would effect me).


There have been several posters on this board that indicated as much.


Pay, I was specifically asking about pay. I don't mean that payments like child support and alimony must be paid to an ex spouse but are there any aspects of someone's pay being essentially garnished at some specified amount or percentage. I personally know of no such incidence. The examples you gave me aren't pay.

What? Why are military retirements what you consider "Pay" but other retirement payments are not? Please explain the difference. My dad gets a payment every month from his company pension, just like I get a military one.


Distributing the Pension
California provides spouses two options for distributing the pension: “cash-out” and “reservation of jurisdiction.” The “cash-out” option allows the spouse with the pension to keep the whole pension. The other spouse instead receives a greater share of other marital property equaling the value of her share of the pension. “Reservation of jurisdiction” is more common in California. This distribution option requires a court order. The monthly pension amount is divided based on each spouse’s percentage, and a check is issued to each party.

http://www.ehow.com/about_6418357_california-divorce-law-pensions.html



Royalties are payments...your movie plays, your song plays, your book sells, your invention sells...you get a payment. What makes military retirement a payment, but this isn't?

Here is a source that calls them payments: http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/intellectual-property/intellectual-property-basics/royalty-payments.htm

Measure Man
08-05-2013, 08:34 PM
And many of those military service members probably had to give up many assets (house, cars, bank accounts, etc) in the divorce in order to keep their military retirement pay.

Some haven't. My best friend is a retired E-9 with 30 years...in his divorce he got 100% of this retirement and the house.


If a military spouse REALLY wants to get part of the military retirement pay in a divorce, then she will almost certainly get it, especially in community property states.

Naturally. Because in most cases, she ought to get something.

In most cases, if the military member REALLY wants a portion of their savings acount...or house...or cars, he gets it...especially in community property states.

Measure Man
08-05-2013, 08:47 PM
People still argue about that point. It is still a valid point



Social security is not divisible in a divorce.



We could also say that the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, which allowed state-sponsored segregation in public education, also cleared up some confusion, but that doesn't mean that the Plessy v. Ferguson decision was a good and fair decision.

The problem with USFSPA is that it is not a good and fair law. The law is heavily biased in favor of the military spouse, and it provides practically no protection to military service members, especially those military service members who were in short term marriages.

The family court system in our country is the cesspool of our legal system. Men are often the victims of appalling civil rights violations in the family courts. The egregious redistribution of wealth in divorce cases is just one of many civil rights violations commonly found in family courts. Family court judges, the lowest caste of judges in our country, have way too much power, and they have proven time and again that they will abuse that power.

USFSPA needs to be rewritten in a way that will ensure both the military spouse and the military service member will be treated fairly in a divorce. The family court judges need more direction and guidance. They don't want it, but they certainly do need it.

1. You are the only one arguing that the law ought to automatically provide retirement to spouses.

2. If you have NO belief or confidence in our courts...it does not matter what the laws say. At end of the day, someone is going to have to make a judgement on some things...and it seems to me you will never be happy with any law that allows for judges to make judgements because of the disdain you hold for them.

USN - Retired
08-05-2013, 08:49 PM
There have been several posters on this board that indicated as much.

Can you give us some examples other than anonymous on-line posters?


Some haven't. My best friend is a retired E-9 with 30 years...in his divorce he got 100% of this retirement and the house.

I suspect that you are leaving out some details of the story. How long were they married? What did the wife get in the divorce? Was the wife in a hurry to marry someone else? Did the wife have a incompetent divorce attorney?


Naturally. Because in most cases, she ought to get something.

Financial compensation for being married? Interesting. Most people agree with you. I do not.

Measure Man
08-05-2013, 08:55 PM
I have never even heard of someone whose retired pay wasn't divided if asked for in a divorce proceeding. Weird since I have always had a high interest in this law (even when it didn't look like it would effect me).

In all your years of the military service...you've never seen anyone divorced after only 2-3 years of marriage without retirement being divided??

I'm sure I've seen dozens...you're right, that is weird.

Measure Man
08-05-2013, 08:57 PM
Can you give us some examples other than anonymous on-line posters?

the ones on thie board, I don't personally know, so they are only anonymous on-line posters.

The ones I do personally know...no, I won't share their names.


I suspect that you are leaving out some details of the story. How long were they married? What did the wife get in the divorce? Was the wife in a hurry to marry someone else? Did the wife have a incompetent divorce attorney?

They were married 20 years. She didn't get much. She had someone else and I believe felt somewhat guilty.


Financial compensation for being married? Interesting. Most people agree with you. I do not.

I just believe that while you are married...you entered into a legal agreement that essentially makes you a joint entity, financially and otherwise...and that what is earned while you're in that status is jointly earned.

TJMAC77SP
08-05-2013, 08:58 PM
There have been several posters on this board that indicated as much.



What? Why are military retirements what you consider "Pay" but other retirement payments are not? Please explain the difference. My dad gets a payment every month from his company pension, just like I get a military one.



Royalties are payments...your movie plays, your song plays, your book sells, your invention sells...you get a payment. What makes military retirement a payment, but this isn't?

Here is a source that calls them payments: http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/intellectual-property/intellectual-property-basics/royalty-payments.htm

I should say I remember you saying that before but neither here nor in my career (or since) have I heard of anyone else claiming that retirement pay was not divided if sought.

Aside from your dad collecting a pension (I don't, I receive retirement pay (or anunity if you prefer) your dads pension I imagine is contributory? This is a road we have been down before. You don't see a difference because quite frankly if weakens your position and I see the difference for the same reason I suppose.

TJMAC77SP
08-05-2013, 08:59 PM
the ones on thie board, I don't personally know, so they are only anonymous on-line posters.

The ones I do personally know...no, I won't share their names.



They were married 20 years. She didn't get much. She had someone else and I believe felt somewhat guilty.



I just believe that while you are married...you entered into a legal agreement that essentially makes you a joint entity, financially and otherwise...and that what is earned while you're in that status is jointly earned.

So, this guilty feeling spouse..............she didn't seek division of the military retirement or did and it was denied?

Measure Man
08-05-2013, 09:03 PM
I should say I remember you saying that before but neither here nor in my career (or since) have I heard of anyone else claiming that retirement pay was not divided if sought.

Aside from your dad collecting a pension (I don't, I receive retirement pay (or anunity if you prefer) your dads pension I imagine is contributory?

Combination of both...and really, whether or not it is contributory I don't think makes a difference. You can take a job for $40 an hour and contribute $4 of that to your 401K. Or you can take a job for $36 an hour, that your employer puts in $4 an hour for your pension. Or you can take a job for $36 per hour that after 20 years provides a pension equivalent to that...what's the difference? It is all compensation for a job you performed while entered into a legal agreement that divides that "asset" upon divorce. The principle at work is really the same.

Measure Man
08-05-2013, 09:05 PM
So, this guilty feeling spouse..............she didn't seek division of the military retirement or did and it was denied?

I wasn't in court during the divorce...I don't think she fought for it, no.

If USN had his way, she would have been automatically entitled to it, by law. She wasn't...and you know why? Because the USFSPA does mandate that she gets any of it. Whether she asks for it or not...whether she has a good lawyer or not...is not really the point. Naturally, there are some better lawyers than others, some better judges than others.

You are telling me you've never ever heard of any military spouse being denied retirement that asked for it...I don't believe it...particularly in short marriages.

USN - Retired
08-05-2013, 09:08 PM
1. You are the only one arguing that the law ought to automatically provide retirement to spouses..

You are incorrect.

I wasn't "arguing". I simply made a proposal for purposes of discussion (post 105 of this thread). I even admitted (in post 129 of this thread) that aspects of my proposal stink, but my proposal seems to be a fair compromise. Additionally, I proposed that a military spouse with less than six years of marriage would get none of the military retirement.



2. If you have NO belief or confidence in our courts...it does not matter what the laws say. At end of the day, someone is going to have to make a judgement on some things...and it seems to me you will never be happy with any law that allows for judges to make judgements because of the disdain you hold for them.

You are again incorrect (and it appears that you have missed my point).

Family court judges have way too much power, and they have proven time and again that they will abuse that power. We need to have laws that limit their power. Then perhaps I will have some confidence in the family court system.

Rusty Jones
08-05-2013, 09:21 PM
Well, I'm not in the reserves yet, but I plan to be. In which case, I'll actually have some leverage. My wife, at any time, could be inheriting the very house she grew up in... from her grandmother, who is 95 years old. The house isn't worth much - I'd say no higher than $60K, since the last upgrades to that house probably happened back in the 1980's - but it has sentimental value to my wife.

If she inherits the house, it becomes both our property. Do I WANT that house? Fuck no. But if SHE wants it, she'll leave my retirement alone.

TSgt"M"
08-05-2013, 09:22 PM
My ex cleaned out the bank accounts and left. Filed for devorce in her home state. I hired a lawyer in her home state. I think the main factor for her signing off of my retirement was she snagged the bank accounts and took it all out of state. Had we gone to court she would have had to fess up with all the $ she took to be divided equally. I don't believe she could have done it. She was wanting to re-marry....I just waited her out. I was basically left with my next paycheck, but got to keep my (hopefully) future retirement.

USN - Retired
08-05-2013, 09:23 PM
They were married 20 years. She didn't get much. She had someone else and I believe felt somewhat guilty.

Hard to believe. Very hard to believe. Might be true, but still hard to believe. Sounds like propaganda from the military spouse community.

If it is true, then it is a very rare example. A VERY rare example. And that's why it is hard to believe.


If USN had his way, she would have been automatically entitled to it, by law.
Wrong again. If I had my way...


Here's what I would like.

As much as possible, the family court would not be involved with marriages and divorce. In a divorce, all property that is legally titled as joint property, would be divided in half. Houses, land, bank accounts that are jointly owned is joint property. Divide them in half. If there is no legal paperwork that says the property is jointly owned, then it is not jointly owned. Unless the military spouse can show some paperwork, such as a prenuptial agreement, that the military retirement income is jointly owned, then it is not jointly owned. Divorce would be simple and the divorce lawyers would starve.

None of that will ever happen. It just won't happen. My plan would deprive all the slimy divorce lawyers with a means to make lots of money. They would most certainly fight my plan..

USN - Retired
08-05-2013, 09:42 PM
I just believe that while you are married...you entered into a legal agreement that essentially makes you a joint entity, financially and otherwise...and that what is earned while you're in that status is jointly earned.

Does your marriage contract specifically state that you entered into a legal agreement that essentially makes you a joint entity, financially and otherwise...and that what is earned while you're in that status is jointly earned?

In this day and age, why should marriage be a legal agreement that essentially makes you a joint entity, financially and otherwise? I know "what" the law says, I just don't believe that the law really serves a purpose. Specifically, I don't see why the government needs to be involved in marriage and divorce.

Given the large number of children who are born and raised out of wed-lock, and given the large number of children who are being raised by divorced parents, what purpose does marriage serve in our society today?

Measure Man
08-05-2013, 09:45 PM
Does your marriage contract specifically state that you entered into a legal agreement that essentially makes you a joint entity, financially and otherwise...and that what is earned while you're in that status is jointly earned?

In this day and age, why should marriage be a legal agreement that essentially makes you a joint entity, financially and otherwise? I know "what" the law says, I just don't believe that the law really serves a purpose. Specifically, I don't see why the government needs to be involved in marriage and divorce.

Given the large number of children who are born and raised out of wed-lock, and given the large number of children who are being raised by divorced parents, what purpose does marriage serve in our society today?

You are bringing up points far beyond the scope of the USFSPA. I think, USFSPA is essentially on par with other divorce laws in place throughout the country...that's what makes it "fair."

USN - Retired
08-05-2013, 10:15 PM
You are bringing up points far beyond the scope of the USFSPA. I think, USFSPA is essentially on par with other divorce laws in place throughout the country...that's what makes it "fair."

Using your form of logic ... Back in the 1950's, the segregation laws in Alabama were on par with the segregation laws in Mississippi and Georgia, and that's what made them "fair".

You are basically using "unfair" laws to justify other "unfair" laws.

I challenge you to ponder the questions that I have asked.

20+Years
08-05-2013, 10:19 PM
Eventually there has to be changes. I agree to equal division, IF, both partners were equal in contributing to the marriage. Being married doesn't automatically make you a contributing member to the marriage, trust me.

My first marriage started off with, "Could I stay home for a year or two with our (stepson to me) child while he's still little"? Sure, 2 years paid by me to stay home and do what you want. Long story is dependapotomaus, but you think she should have been "earning" part of my retirement in those first two years? What about the years she was overextending our credit, spending all we had, or doing drugs and such to the detrement of my career?

I mean really, one shoe does not fit all. Equal distribution laws are pathetic, each case has its own story. There is one clause definitely needed with USFSPA.

Lawyer: "Judge, we would like to enter the dependapotamous clause".
Judge: "Split assests. Retirement pay stays with the contributing member." *Bangs gavel*

Measure Man
08-05-2013, 10:44 PM
Using your form of logic ... Back in the 1950's, the segregation laws in Alabama were on par with the segregation laws in Mississippi and Georgia, and that's what made them "fair".

You are basically using "unfair" laws to justify other "unfair" laws.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What is a "fair deal" in divorce proceedings is not on the same plane as racial discrimination.

I'm saying USFSPA operates within a greater context...

Or, i could say...using your logic. Since you don't think that the government should be involved in marriage at all...that it would be okay to ban a state from licensing interracial couples...since might be a first step to the govt. getting out of marriage altogether.


I challenge you to ponder the questions that I have asked.

I have pondered them often and always give you the same result.

For the most part, I agree with getting the govt. out of marriage. It creates some other complications initially...but mostly those are able to be overcome. As I understand it, there are some 1100+ laws and regulations that either deal with marriage, or deal with benefits and privileges of marriage...some of those would have to be addressed in other ways.

However, getting govt. out of the marriage business does not and should not begin with the USFSPA...it is a much greater fight. Doing it solely with the USFSPA is akin to trying to make racing fair by giving a restrictor plate to only one team...and arguing that to be fair, they all should have one, so it's a positive step to give it to just one.

Measure Man
08-05-2013, 10:47 PM
Eventually there has to be changes. I agree to equal division, IF, both partners were equal in contributing to the marriage. Being married doesn't automatically make you a contributing member to the marriage, trust me.

My first marriage started off with, "Could I stay home for a year or two with our (stepson to me) child while he's still little"? Sure, 2 years paid by me to stay home and do what you want. Long story is dependapotomaus, but you think she should have been "earning" part of my retirement in those first two years? What about the years she was overextending our credit, spending all we had, or doing drugs and such to the detrement of my career?

I mean really, one shoe does not fit all. Equal distribution laws are pathetic, each case has its own story. There is one clause definitely needed with USFSPA.

Lawyer: "Judge, we would like to enter the dependapotamous clause".
Judge: "Split assests. Retirement pay stays with the contributing member." *Bangs gavel*

So...your point is that you think the USFSPA should NOT automatically divide retirement...and that maybe it should say something like..."courts may divide retirement pay, but don't have to...we leave that up to the states and their courts"?

Would something like that work for you?

USN - Retired
08-05-2013, 11:11 PM
Or, i could say...using your logic. Since you don't think that the government should be involved in marriage at all...that it would be okay to ban a state from licensing interracial couples...since might be a first step to the govt. getting out of marriage altogether..

I think that you may have missed my point. I am suggesting that government get COMPLETELY out of the business of regulating marriages, ALL marriages. It will probably never happen, but I am hopeful nonetheless.


However, getting govt. out of the marriage business does not and should not begin with the USFSPA...it is a much greater fight. Doing it solely with the USFSPA is akin to trying to make racing fair by giving a restrictor plate to only one team...and arguing that to be fair, they all should have one, so it's a positive step to give it to just one.

And that brings us back to my proposal in post #105 of this thread. That stinky proposal of mine will at least provide military service members with some level of fairness until we can find some way to evict the government from the institution of marriage and divorce.

Unfortunately, we don't have any military spouses currently joining us in this conversation. What do you think the military spouse community would think of my proposal in post #105? I strongly suspect that most of them would not like it one bit. The reason why they wouldn't like it is because what they currently have now is considerably better for them than what I am proposing in post #105.

USFSPA needs to be openly discussed in Congress and then rewritten and updated.

Measure Man
08-05-2013, 11:25 PM
I think that you may have missed my point. I am suggesting that government get COMPLETELY out of the business of regulating marriages, ALL marriages. It will probably never happen, but I am hopeful nonetheless.

I got that point.

So, does that mean...a US citizen can apply for a fiancee'/spouse visa for anybody they want...or that the govt. no longer recognizes a marriage, or any relationship, as a valid priority to obtain an immigration visa?


And that brings us back to my proposal in post #105 of this thread. That stinky proposal of mine will at least provide military service members with some level of fairness until we can find some way to evict the government from the institution of marriage and divorce.

Unfortunately, we don't have any military spouses currently joining us in this conversation. What do you think the military spouse community would think of my proposal in post #105? I strongly suspect that most of them would not like it one bit. The reason why they wouldn't like it is because what they currently have now is considerably better for them than what I am proposing in post #105.

USFSPA needs to be openly discussed in Congress and then rewritten and updated.

as I understand it, you want the federal govt. to put restrictions on what the states can and can not do in their divorce courts.

Where are all the "states rats" conservatives at when you need them?? LOL. As I said, I honestly don't have much of any problem with your proposal...I particularly like the idea of having an "equivalent value" chart of military retirement...allowing the spouse to be "bought off" of it one-time...protecting both.

USN - Retired
08-05-2013, 11:28 PM
So...your point is that you think the USFSPA should NOT automatically divide retirement...and that maybe it should say something like..."courts may divide retirement pay, but don't have to...we leave that up to the states and their courts"?

Would something like that work for you?

No.

Family court judges have way too much power, and they have proven time and again that they will abuse that power. We need to have laws that limit their power.

Currently, a former military spouse can get a life time cut of her ex-hubby's military retirement pay, even if the marriage lasted ten years or less. USFSPA, in its current form, gives family court judges too much power and too little direction and guidance. USFSPA does help the divorce lawyers make a lot of money though.

Family court judges need more direction and guidance on how to divide military retirement income, especially for short term marriages. See post #105 for ideas to start the discussion.

Measure Man
08-05-2013, 11:38 PM
No.

Family court judges have way too much power, and they have proven time and again that they will abuse that power. We need to have laws that limit their power.

Currently, a former military spouse can get a life time cut of her ex-hubby's military retirement pay, even if the marriage lasted ten years or less. USFSPA, in its current form, gives family court judges too much power and too little direction and guidance. USFSPA does help the divorce lawyers make a lot of money though.

Family court judges need more direction and guidance on how to divide military retirement income, especially for short term marriages. See post #105 for ideas to start the discussion.

What are you a ventriloquist?

garhkal
08-06-2013, 06:00 AM
I just believe that while you are married...you entered into a legal agreement that essentially makes you a joint entity, financially and otherwise...and that what is earned while you're in that status is jointly earned.

This i have never agreed with.. Why something is automatically considered jointly earned just cause you are married.
Never had your spouse say "Its me or the job"? How is that showing she 'supported your work.


My ex cleaned out the bank accounts and left. Filed for devorce in her home state. I hired a lawyer in her home state. I think the main factor for her signing off of my retirement was she snagged the bank accounts and took it all out of state. Had we gone to court she would have had to fess up with all the $ she took to be divided equally. I don't believe she could have done it. She was wanting to re-marry....I just waited her out. I was basically left with my next paycheck, but got to keep my (hopefully) future retirement.

?? Was it a joint account? If not i would have charged her with theft.


Eventually there has to be changes. I agree to equal division, IF, both partners were equal in contributing to the marriage. Being married doesn't automatically make you a contributing member to the marriage, trust me.

My first marriage started off with, "Could I stay home for a year or two with our (stepson to me) child while he's still little"? Sure, 2 years paid by me to stay home and do what you want. Long story is dependapotomaus, but you think she should have been "earning" part of my retirement in those first two years? What about the years she was overextending our credit, spending all we had, or doing drugs and such to the detrement of my career?

I mean really, one shoe does not fit all. Equal distribution laws are pathetic, each case has its own story. There is one clause definitely needed with USFSPA.

Exactly. I have known 3 people personally who cause of their spouse had their security clearance screwed up causing them to lose their rate. So how should the spouse in those cases be considered to be 'contributing' to the work?

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 06:43 AM
This i have never agreed with.. Why something is automatically considered jointly earned just cause you are married.
Never had your spouse say "Its me or the job"? How is that showing she 'supported your work.

So..what of the spouses that did contribute...only to have the GI cheat, split for another woman, or whatever...and leave her with nothing?

TJMAC77SP
08-06-2013, 11:40 AM
In all your years of the military service...you've never seen anyone divorced after only 2-3 years of marriage without retirement being divided??

I'm sure I've seen dozens...you're right, that is weird.

In those cases the USFSPA wouldn't apply. I thought we were discussing that law here. So to answer your question on point....no I have never heard first or second hand (other than your example) of a single ex spouse who, meeting the 10-10 rule of the USFSPA and seeking it in a divorce proceeding, was not awarded a portion of the member's retirement. Not a single one.

TJMAC77SP
08-06-2013, 11:44 AM
I wasn't in court during the divorce...I don't think she fought for it, no.

If USN had his way, she would have been automatically entitled to it, by law. She wasn't...and you know why? Because the USFSPA does mandate that she gets any of it. Whether she asks for it or not...whether she has a good lawyer or not...is not really the point. Naturally, there are some better lawyers than others, some better judges than others.

You are telling me you've never ever heard of any military spouse being denied retirement that asked for it...I don't believe it...particularly in short marriages.

As I said in your other post, a short marriage wouldn't qualify the spouse to any portion of the retirement income. I thought you knew that.

"The 10/10 Rule (http://www.dfas.mil/garnishment/usfspa/legal.html)

In addition, for orders dividing retired pay as property to be enforced under the USFSPA, a member and former spouse must have been married to each other for 10 years or more during which the member performed at least 10 years of military service creditable towards retirement eligibility (the 10/10 rule)."

TJMAC77SP
08-06-2013, 11:46 AM
Combination of both...and really, whether or not it is contributory I don't think makes a difference. You can take a job for $40 an hour and contribute $4 of that to your 401K. Or you can take a job for $36 an hour, that your employer puts in $4 an hour for your pension. Or you can take a job for $36 per hour that after 20 years provides a pension equivalent to that...what's the difference? It is all compensation for a job you performed while entered into a legal agreement that divides that "asset" upon divorce. The principle at work is really the same.

As I have already stated we disagree on the difference between typical pensions and military retired pay so no the principal isn't the same (although you didn't include military compensation in your comparison)

TJMAC77SP
08-06-2013, 11:51 AM
So...your point is that you think the USFSPA should NOT automatically divide retirement...and that maybe it should say something like..."courts may divide retirement pay, but don't have to...we leave that up to the states and their courts"?

Would something like that work for you?

Nice try but no. I think he stated it pretty clearly what would work for him...."I agree to equal division, IF, both partners were equal in contributing to the marriage. Being married doesn't automatically make you a contributing member to the marriage"

BTW: I disagree with the premise that a stay-at-home mom in and of itself is not contributing. It's when he gets into the rest that things start applying to the argument at hand.

20+Years
08-06-2013, 01:22 PM
So...your point is that you think the USFSPA should NOT automatically divide retirement...and that maybe it should say something like..."courts may divide retirement pay, but don't have to...we leave that up to the states and their courts"?

Would something like that work for you?

I think you went off the deep end there... but thats ok, its an emotional topic. What I think is that the court should have do determine the level of "contribution" by the spouse. There have been too many cases where the freeloader that has never worked one day walks away with half a retirement. Being "married" does not justify the right to that.

My biggest concern is the cases that have gone severly wrong. I have a friend that when he was still a SSgt, his first wife got alimony and 50% of his retirement. He retired at 20yrs as a MSgt (could have easily went higher) because he was not going to "earn" her anymore in retirement funds. You would think he did something wrong to deserve that, but in fact, she was pure evil and lawyered up, he was just looking to get out of that marriage. The law has to be changed for BOTH sides. Changed may even be the wrong word, it needs to be clarified for the judges.

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 03:34 PM
In those cases the USFSPA wouldn't apply.

Why wouldn't the law apply?


I thought we were discussing that law here. So to answer your question on point....no I have never heard first or second hand (other than your example) of a single ex spouse who, meeting the 10-10 rule of the USFSPA and seeking it in a divorce proceeding, was not awarded a portion of the member's retirement. Not a single one.

What do YOU think the 10-10 rule is? Because it's obvious you don't actually know what it is.

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 03:36 PM
As I said in your other post, a short marriage wouldn't qualify the spouse to any portion of the retirement income. I thought you knew that.

"The 10/10 Rule (http://www.dfas.mil/garnishment/usfspa/legal.html)

In addition, for orders dividing retired pay as property to be enforced under the USFSPA, a member and former spouse must have been married to each other for 10 years or more during which the member performed at least 10 years of military service creditable towards retirement eligibility (the 10/10 rule)."

You could not be more wrong here.

Their is NO MINIMUM limit of service or marriage for the court to order the retirement divided.

The 10/10 rule simply allows the spouse "to enforce the order through the DOD"...i.e. to collect the payments directly from DFAS rather than collecting it from the military member.



4 Does the USFSPA have any other requirements that apply to retired pay as property awards only?
In order for a former spouse to qualify for direct payments of retired pay as property under the USFSPA, the former spouse must have been married to the member for 10 years or more during which the member performed at least 10 years of service creditable in determining the member’s eligibility for retired pay (the 10/10 requirement). The 10/10 requirement is a statutory requirement for direct payments under the USFSPA, and cannot be waived by the member. If the 10/10 requirement is not met, it does not mean that a former spouse’s retired pay award is invalid. It means only that it cannot be enforced by direct payments under the USFSPA. The 10/10 requirement does not apply to the enforcement of alimony or child support.

http://www.dfas.mil/garnishment/usfspa/faqs.html

Sorry, with all your intense interest in this topic over the years, I thought you would've known that.

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 03:42 PM
I think you went off the deep end there... but thats ok, its an emotional topic.

Went off the deep end? I basically just paraphrased the law as it currently exists. What is this deep end you speak of?


What I think is that the court should have do determine the level of "contribution" by the spouse. There have been too many cases where the freeloader that has never worked one day walks away with half a retirement. Being "married" does not justify the right to that.

So...what if there is a no-fault divorce, as I believe most are? How do you expect judges to make this determination? What is a higher contribution in your opinion, staying home and taking care of the 3 kids, or getting a GS-7 job on base?

Should this determination have to only be done for military marriages?...or should it be done for a Doctor with a large savings account...a union worker with a Teamster's pension...and a DMV worker with a state pension?


My biggest concern is the cases that have gone severly wrong. I have a friend that when he was still a SSgt, his first wife got alimony and 50% of his retirement. He retired at 20yrs as a MSgt (could have easily went higher) because he was not going to "earn" her anymore in retirement funds. You would think he did something wrong to deserve that, but in fact, she was pure evil and lawyered up, he was just looking to get out of that marriage. The law has to be changed for BOTH sides. Changed may even be the wrong word, it needs to be clarified for the judges.

Do you think this will no longer happen if judges "make a determination on the level of "contribution" by the spouse? Wouldn't a spouse having a good lawyer pay off just as much or more in your case?

Right now, the law basically says, "State courts may, but are not required to, divide military retirement as an asset in divorce proceedings."

Do I understand correctly that you think the law would be improved by saying, "State courts should (or must) consider a spouse's contribution to the military members career, and then may, but are not required to, divide miitary retirement as an asset in divorce proceedings."

What does that fix exactly? Seems to me your friend's spouse still would have gotten a good lawyer who I'm sure would have been very eloquent in describing her contribution.

20+Years
08-06-2013, 04:30 PM
"Off the deep end", in my opinion, is taking someones example or words and then using them in your own way to belittle thier idea or belief. I no more want to rip off a deserving spouse than I do an active member. Despite what the law currently says, We need to stop the "automatic" thought process that 10 years of marrige (or even less) equals benefits for life.

There is a huge difference between a couple that mutually decides one person will be a homemaker, and one where the other half doesn't work just because they can rely on the AD member. What should the law actually state? I don't know. I think AFSA and thier lawyers would be better at worrding it than me. All I know, is we get run over for our benefits.

I loved the one time I was going through a divorce, caused by my then wife, deciding three weekends in a row to just not come home. Later I learned the whole truth about the drugs, the boyfriend in another state, ect. Worked off-again, on-again. When she worked, it was "her" money. Did not support me at work, actually bitched if I had to stay late, ect. Married 8 years. In your opinion, should she be getting part of my retirement?

Bunch
08-06-2013, 04:46 PM
"Off the deep end", in my opinion, is taking someones example or words and then using them in your own way to belittle thier idea or belief. I no more want to rip off a deserving spouse than I do an active member. Despite what the law currently says, We need to stop the "automatic" thought process that 10 years of marrige (or even less) equals benefits for life.

There is a huge difference between a couple that mutually decides one person will be a homemaker, and one where the other half doesn't work just because they can rely on the AD member. What should the law actually state? I don't know. I think AFSA and thier lawyers would be better at worrding it than me. All I know, is we get run over for our benefits.

I loved the one time I was going through a divorce, caused by my then wife, deciding three weekends in a row to just not come home. Later I learned the whole truth about the drugs, the boyfriend in another state, ect. Worked off-again, on-again. When she worked, it was "her" money. Did not support me at work, actually bitched if I had to stay late, ect. Married 8 years. In your opinion, should she be getting part of my retirement?

I think that they should be some sort of balance and each case should be evaluated on its merits instead of a big broad brush like now. If we start digging we could probably find that for each case of "my ex-wife is evil and wants my bennies", we could find a case of the mentally/physically abusive, video game addict, alcoholic, do no good, doesn't take care of family, cheater husband that wife had to put of with for years until the kids were old enough and she could have some sense of security.

IMO, if we dig we are going to find more cases of the latter.

20+Years
08-06-2013, 04:58 PM
Thats all I want. For each case to be "evaluated" on its own merits. No system will be perfect I am sure, but the one we have now favors spouses hands down.

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 04:59 PM
"Off the deep end", in my opinion, is taking someones example or words and then using them in your own way to belittle thier idea or belief. I no more want to rip off a deserving spouse than I do an active member. Despite what the law currently says, We need to stop the "automatic" thought process that 10 years of marrige (or even less) equals benefits for life.

I wasn't belittling anything...I was trying to illustrate that you seem to be under the impression, like many others, that the USFSPA automatically entitles a spouse to something, when it does not. Because essentially, you seem to be arguing that this law sucks..and giving reasons that it sucks that are false...and arguing that it should be more like it actually is.


There is a huge difference between a couple that mutually decides one person will be a homemaker, and one where the other half doesn't work just because they can rely on the AD member. What should the law actually state? I don't know. I think AFSA and thier lawyers would be better at worrding it than me. All I know, is we get run over for our benefits.

Yes, unfortunately, I've heard AFSA reiterate more misconceptions on this law than just about anyone. So, okay, we don't have to put in the actual legal language, but just in layman's terms...conceptually...what power should the law give to states and how should it restrict that power?


I loved the one time I was going through a divorce, caused by my then wife, deciding three weekends in a row to just not come home. Later I learned the whole truth about the drugs, the boyfriend in another state, ect. Worked off-again, on-again. When she worked, it was "her" money. Did not support me at work, actually bitched if I had to stay late, ect. Married 8 years. In your opinion, should she be getting part of my retirement?

See, that's a great question. IMO, not necessarily..the specifics on your case are best decided in your divorce trial. IMO, every divorce is different and we have to have judges to rule on these things. Pretty much the only way to do that is to have the law say what it says..."Hey states, you can do it if you want, but you don't have to. "

What you should know is that the USFSPA did not grant your ex-wife any of your retirement...nor did it make it mandatory that your state and judge grant her any of it...your state and your judge did that. And if the law said they could NOT do that...then it is other military spouses that might be getting screwed who didn't run off and do drugs, etc.

In your opinion...who should decide if a spouse is "worthy" of the retirement or not?

TJMAC77SP
08-06-2013, 05:01 PM
You could not be more wrong here.

Their is NO MINIMUM limit of service or marriage for the court to order the retirement divided.

The 10/10 rule simply allows the spouse "to enforce the order through the DOD"...i.e. to collect the payments directly from DFAS rather than collecting it from the military member.



Sorry, with all your intense interest in this topic over the years, I thought you would've known that.

So what you are saying is that the ex-spouse can be awarded the retirement by a court but DoD will not pay it unless the 10-10 rule is met? What were you saying about situations with no difference?

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 05:05 PM
Thats all I want. For each case to be "evaluated" on its own merits. No system will be perfect I am sure, but the one we have now favors spouses hands down.

The USFSPA does not favor spouses at all. In fact, it does exactly what you suggest. Now, USN might say...the entire concept of marriage and divorce in our country favors women...but that is a much bigger deal than the USFSPA.

From DFAS:


Frequently Asked Questions
1 Are former spouses of military retirees automatically entitled to a portion of the retirees’ retired pay?
No, there is no Federal law that automatically entitles a former spouse to a portion of a member’s military retired pay. A former spouse must have been awarded a portion of a member’s military retired pay in a State court order. The Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA), Title 10, United States Code, Section 1408, passed in 1981, accomplishes two things. First, it authorizes (but does not require) State courts to divide military retired pay as a marital asset or as community property in a divorce proceeding. Second, it provides a mechanism for a former spouse to enforce a retired pay as property award by direct payments from the member’s retired pay. Retired pay as property payments are prospective only. Retired pay arrears cannot be collected under the USFSPA.

If you ask me, that second purpose is a good one...I'd much rather have my ex- get her own check from DFAS (and have to pay her own taxes on it), then have to sit and write her a check every month (after taxes).

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 05:11 PM
So what you are saying is that the ex-spouse can be awarded the retirement by a court but DoD will not pay it unless the 10-10 rule is met?


Yes, that is what the law says. If the parties were married only 9 years, the member would have to write his ex- a check every month (or set up an allotment).



What were you saying about situations with no difference?

What do you mean by 'no difference'?

TJMAC77SP
08-06-2013, 05:59 PM
Yes, that is what the law says. If the parties were married only 9 years, the member would have to write his ex- a check every month (or set up an allotment).




What do you mean by 'no difference'?

My question was rhetorical. I am amused at the thought of a military retiree voluntary writing a check to an ex spouse where there is no statatory requirement to do so. I am guessing you probably knew that.

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 06:09 PM
My question was rhetorical. I am amused at the thought of a military retiree voluntary writing a check to an ex spouse where there is no statatory requirement to do so. I am guessing you probably knew that.

No...I had no idea how misinformed you are.

You are missing the point. There is never a statutory requirement requiring a military member to pay a former spouse...that requirement comes from a court order.

If the court orders division of the military retired pay for someone married 9 years...the member still has to pay that or he is in contempt of court. He could go to jail for refusing to pay...if not jail, there are certainly legal consequences. Is that what you call "voluntarily paying"? Same as if a civilian gets divorced and the court orders one person to pay the other person...whether it be a QDRO, alimony, child support, etc.

Do you really believe that if the 10/10 rule isn't met the servicemember doesn't have to pay?

If the 10/10 rule is met...then that payment can be gotten directly from DFAS to the former spouse...that is ALL the 10/10 rule does. As mentioned, it is actually an advantage to the servicemember because then she pays her own taxes on that money.

20+Years
08-06-2013, 06:32 PM
See, that's a great question. IMO, not necessarily..the specifics on your case are best decided in your divorce trial. IMO, every divorce is different and we have to have judges to rule on these things. Pretty much the only way to do that is to have the law say what it says..."Hey states, you can do it if you want, but you don't have to. "

What you should know is that the USFSPA did not grant your ex-wife any of your retirement...nor did it make it mandatory that your state and judge grant her any of it...your state and your judge did that. And if the law said they could NOT do that...then it is other military spouses that might be getting screwed who didn't run off and do drugs, etc.

In your opinion...who should decide if a spouse is "worthy" of the retirement or not?

We will have to agree to disagree. We are both obviously set in our opinions.

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 06:53 PM
Do all states allow military retired pay to be divided as marital or community property?

Yes. Only Puerto Rico bars the division of pension rights upon divorce. All states have one method or another of granting the division of military pensions as marital property. You should check the laws of the state where you’re a legal resident, as well as the "home state" (or domicile) of the servicemember. You should also consult a military legal assistance attorney as to pension division in specific states. An overseas court, however, cannot grant military pension division; DFAS will only honor orders regarding division of retired pay from U.S. courts, not those of foreign countries.

Get divorced in Puerto Rico!

USN - Retired
08-06-2013, 06:56 PM
So, does that mean...a US citizen can apply for a fiancee'/spouse visa for anybody they want...or that the govt. no longer recognizes a marriage, or any relationship, as a valid priority to obtain an immigration visa?

The federal government should be allowed to "recognize" a marriage for purposes of immigration, but I don't believe that the federal government should be "regulating" marriages and divorces. Having said all that, I really don't like the fiancee'/spouse visa program. I have seen numerous Sailors marry bar girls and mail order brides. It never worked out well. fiancee'/spouse visas should be limited to couples who have already lived together for at least a few years.


I think that they should be some sort of balance and each case should be evaluated on its merits instead of a big broad brush like now.


Thats all I want. For each case to be "evaluated" on its own merits. No system will be perfect I am sure, but the one we have now favors spouses hands down.



..the specifics on your case are best decided in your divorce trial. IMO, every divorce is different and we have to have judges to rule on these things. Pretty much the only way to do that is to have the law say what it says..."Hey states, you can do it if you want, but you don't have to. "

Basically, all of you are talking about a "fault" divorce. That is a great idea that is, unfortunately, totally unfeasible. TOTALLY. COMPLETELY. UNFEASIBLE. Here's why - a fault divorce is VERY expensive. Telling a military service member to go file a "fault" divorce is like telling a military service member to go buy a Maserati. They simply can not afford it. Even if a spouse is found to be at fault, assets are still usually split 50/50 by the courts.

Additionally, in some states, it is practically impossible to file a fault divorce.

Furthermore, if the military spouse is a housewife, then the military service member must pay for his divorce attorney and also his soon-to-be ex-wife's divorce attorney. He has to pay for both attorneys. Since the military service member has to pay ALL of the divorce expenses, the military spouse can simply drag out the divorce process until her hubby runs out of money to pay the divorce attorneys.


Now, USN might say...the entire concept of marriage and divorce in our country favors women...but that is a much bigger deal than the USFSPA.

Close. The divorce laws definitely favor the stay-at-home spouse (which is usually the woman).

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 07:04 PM
The federal government should be allowed to "recognize" a marriage for purposes of immigration, but I don't believe that the federal government should be "regulating" marriages and divorces. Having said all that, I really don't like the fiancee'/spouse visa program. I have seen numerous Sailors marry bar girls and mail order brides. It never worked out well. fiancee'/spouse visas should be limited to couples who have already lived together for at least a few years.

That was just one example where the govt. needs to "involved" in marraige, IMO. Again...in order to "recognize" a marriage, there will end up being a regulation or law that says what the govt. will recognize and what they won't...i.e. same-sex, married in a church? what churches are recognized? If not, can any two people just claim "to be married" for immigration or are there requirements?

We've all seen GIs marry bar girls...although, I know many that did work out well, and many that did not.


Basically, all of you are talking about a "fault" divorce. That is a great idea that is, unfortunately, totally unfeasible. TOTALLY. COMPLETELY. UNFEASIBLE. Here's why - a fault divorce is VERY expensive. Telling a military service member to go file a "fault" divorce is like telling a military service member to go buy a Maserati. They simply can not afford it. Even if a spouse is found to be at fault, assets are still usually split 50/50 by the courts.

Additionally, in some states, it is practically impossible to file a fault divorce.

Furthermore, if the military spouse is a housewife, then the military service member must pay for his divorce attorney and also his soon-to-be ex-wife's divorce attorney. He has to pay for both attorneys. Since the military service member has to pay ALL of the divorce expenses, the military spouse can simply drag out the divorce process until her hubby runs out of money to pay the divorce attorneys.



Yes, this is right. I brought up no-fault divorce earlier and was heading there again...most divorces are "no-fault", which basically means, the court is not even going to make a judgement about who contributes this or that, who is at fault, etc. IOW, marital property is going to be divided in most cases...and who cheated on who and who did drugs, etc. is not even an issue considered. This again, has little to do with the USFSPA itself.


Close. The divorce laws definitely favor the stay-at-home spouse (which is usually the woman).

Ok.

USN - Retired
08-06-2013, 07:08 PM
Let's take a moment to review the USFSPA 10/10 rule...

For orders dividing retired pay as property to be enforced under the USFSPA (i.e. paid by DFAS), a member and former spouse must have been married to each other for 10 years or more during which the member performed at least 10 years of military service creditable towards retirement eligibility (the 10/10 rule).

If a retired military service member has been ordered to pay his ex-wife part of his retirement pay, but he does not meet the USFSPA 10/10 rule, then he could go overseas to someplace like Thailand or the Philippines. He would technically be in contempt of court, but the ex-wife would need to find some way to get him into court (i.e. subpoena) in order to have him formally held in contempt of court. If the retired military service member is careful to never reveal his overseas address to anyone who might pass it on to his ex-wife, then the ex-wife would never be able to get him into family court and collect the retirement pay.

So basically, the retired guy can live in some tropical resort in some place like Thailand or the Philippines and give part of his retirement pay to his gorgeous twenty-something sugar baby who will treat him like a prince

-or-

The retired guy can live in the US and give part of his retirement pay to his obese and obnoxious ex-wife who will treat him like pond scum.

Decisions, decisions.

For obvious reasons, the former spouse community has been trying hard to eliminate the 10/10 rule from USFSPA.

Of note: the USFSPA 10/10 rule applies only to military retirement pay that has been awarded as property. DFAS will pay alimony and child support direct to the ex-wife regardless of the length of marriage.

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 07:12 PM
Let's take a moment to review the USFSPA 10/10 rule...

For orders dividing retired pay as property to be enforced under the USFSPA (i.e. paid by DFAS), a member and former spouse must have been married to each other for 10 years or more during which the member performed at least 10 years of military service creditable towards retirement eligibility (the 10/10 rule).

If a retired military service member has been ordered to pay his ex-wife part of his retirement pay, but he does not meet the USFSPA 10/10 rule, then he could go overseas to someplace like Thailand or the Philippines. He would technically be in contempt of court, but the ex-wife would need to find some way to get him into court (i.e. subpoena) in order to have him formally held in contempt of court. If the retired military service member is careful to never reveal his overseas address to anyone who might pass it on to his ex-wife, then the ex-wife would never be able to get him into family court and collect the retirement pay.

So basically, the retired guy can live in some tropical resort in some place like Thailand or the Philippines and give part of his retirement pay to his gorgeous twenty-something sugar baby who will treat him like a prince

-or-

The retired guy can live in the US and give part of his retirement pay to his obese and obnoxious ex-wife who will treat him like pond scum.

Decisions, decisions.

For obvious reasons, the former spouse community has been trying hard to eliminate the 10/10 rule from USFSPA.

Of note: the USFSPA 10/10 rule applies only to military retirement pay that has been awarded as property. DFAS will pay alimony and child support direct to the ex-wife regardless of the length of marriage.

I concur with all you've said here :-)

Bunch
08-06-2013, 07:23 PM
Let's take a moment to review the USFSPA 10/10 rule...

-or-

The retired guy can live in the US and give part of his retirement pay to his obese and obnoxious ex-wife who will treat him like pond scum.

Decisions, decisions.

For obvious reasons, the former spouse community has been trying hard to eliminate the 10/10 rule from USFSPA.

Of note: the USFSPA 10/10 rule applies only to military retirement pay that has been awarded as property. DFAS will pay alimony and child support direct to the ex-wife regardless of the length of marriage.

You make great points but when you generalize an entire community like you do it just diminishes the points you are trying to make. It makes you sound misogynistic, bitter and overly emotional. The fact that matter is that you don't know what happened in every single military marriage that ends up in a divorce and should not be judging an entire community of people for what happened to either you, someone close to you and/or what your perception of the matter is.

The discussion that we are having is great and I can understand how people that are touched by this law can feel that they are being targeted unfairly, but I rather have a discussion about the law itself and not about calling a entire group of people names and other things that are not productive to the discussion.

TJMAC77SP
08-06-2013, 07:29 PM
No...I had no idea how misinformed you are.

You are missing the point. There is never a statutory requirement requiring a military member to pay a former spouse...that requirement comes from a court order.

If the court orders division of the military retired pay for someone married 9 years...the member still has to pay that or he is in contempt of court. He could go to jail for refusing to pay...if not jail, there are certainly legal consequences. Is that what you call "voluntarily paying"? Same as if a civilian gets divorced and the court orders one person to pay the other person...whether it be a QDRO, alimony, child support, etc.

Do you really believe that if the 10/10 rule isn't met the servicemember doesn't have to pay?

If the 10/10 rule is met...then that payment can be gotten directly from DFAS to the former spouse...that is ALL the 10/10 rule does. As mentioned, it is actually an advantage to the servicemember because then she pays her own taxes on that money.

I am not missing the point. Neither do I believe I am misinformed but thanks for that moment of JoeB. You however seem to be living in a place not quite reality.

First let's deal with one thing. Again I ask, do you know of anyone personally and first hand who has been awarded a portion of a military member’s retirement pay who does not meet the 10/10 rule? The USFSPA was written exactly because courts were not dividing said military pay so in light of this, what judge will ignore the law, specifically the 10/10 rule and award division for marriages shorter in duration?
Secondly, contempt of court? Aside from stupidly living in the same jurisdiction where such a citation is issued (which I doubt would in any case) what vehicle would be used to enforce such an order? Garnishment? Nope, because DFAS won’t recognize the garnishment order if the 10/10 rule isn’t met.

This is where ideas meet reality. You always claim that the USFSPA doesn’t mandate division of military retired pay and technically you are correct but other than you, no one knows of a single instance where it was sought and denied (for marriages which meet the 10/10 rule). Judges see the law which says the retired pay can be divided so they do it. This in effect makes the USFSPA the vehicle that divides retired members pay based solely on a mathematical formula.

Now you say that the 10/10 rule isn’t mandatory and again you are technically correct as a judge has pretty wide leeway to make rulings but again, getting those rulings enforced is another matter. A matter of reality. There are simply no realistic enforcement vehicles open to courts in getting the retirement pay divided.

Admittedly there may be some one-off cases where strange ruling have been made but as a whole the military pay is divided per the USFSPA formula, using the 10/10 rule with no other consideration.
The results are what count here and with the members who grouse at the USFSPA. Also admittedly some feel no ex-spouse should be awarded any portion of the member’s retired pay and I can’t support that because some spouses do indeed support the military career and make sacrifices for it and should be rewarded as the retired member is. Unfortunately regardless of what one thinks the law says of doesn’t say, it is being enforced in a near blanket manner in the mathematical manner any other community property is divided.

You were much better off defending your position on a simplified moral ground of all things being fair and equal. I may not agree but understand the position.

USN - Retired
08-06-2013, 07:48 PM
You make great points but when you generalize an entire community like you do it just diminishes the points you are trying to make. It makes you sound misogynistic, bitter and overly emotional. The fact that matter is that you don't know what happened in every single military marriage that ends up in a divorce and should not be judging an entire community of people for what happened to either you, someone close to you and/or what your perception of the matter is.

The discussion that we are having is great and I can understand how people that are touched by this law can feel that they are being targeted unfairly, but I rather have a discussion about the law itself and not about calling a entire group of people names and other things that are not productive to the discussion.

I will not be manipulated by your shaming language and personal attacks, so you're wasting your time. You are obviously just trying to draw attention away from the points that I have raised.

I was just giving an example. It will be hard to discuss the law if we can not discuss examples.

The topic of this forum is USFPSA. I am not the topic of this forum. Try to stay on topic. If you want to continue attacking me personally, then start a new thread for that topic.

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 07:49 PM
I am not missing the point. Neither do I believe I am misinformed but thanks for that moment of JoeB. You however seem to be living in a place not quite reality.

First let's deal with one thing. Again I ask, do you know of anyone personally and first hand who has been awarded a portion of a military member’s retirement pay who does not meet the 10/10 rule?

Yes, of course. I don't remember you aksing that...you asked if I knew anyone that DIDN'T get it awarded.

So, yes, I know both...I know people married 7 years that pay their spouse 17.5% of the retirement based on 7 years/20 years service X 50%...AND I know people OVER 10/10 that pay nothing.

Now you really have me confused...first you say you've never met any couple that did NOT have the retirement pay divided...now you are saying there aren't any, under 10 years, that DID have it divided.

Is your position that 100% of the people meeting 10/10 get their retirement divided and 100% of the people not meeting it do not get it divided??


The USFSPA was written exactly because courts were not dividing said military pay

Incorrect. Military pay had been divided long before the USFSPA came out.


so in light of this, what judge will ignore the law, specifically the 10/10 rule and award division for marriages shorter in duration?

Judges do not have to ignore or follow the law to do that. The law specifically recognizes the right of the courts to divide retirement, regardless of how many years involved. There is nothing in the 10/10 rules that implies, suggests or hints that judges should or should not award retirement.

Again, you appear to not understand the 10/10 rule. The whole of that rule is enforceability...and has nothing to do with whether or not the court orders division.


Secondly, contempt of court? Aside from stupidly living in the same jurisdiction where such a citation is issued (which I doubt would in any case) what vehicle would be used to enforce such an order? Garnishment? Nope, because DFAS won’t recognize the garnishment order if the 10/10 rule isn’t met.

How do you think civilians are compelled to pay court orders?

...put a lein on property, etc. As USN stated, if not enforceable under 10/10 the military member could skip the country and it would be very hard for the spouse to collect.


This is where ideas meet reality. You always claim that the USFSPA doesn’t mandate division of military retired pay and technically you are correct but other than you, no one knows of a single instance where it was sought and denied (for marriages which meet the 10/10 rule).

No one? As we've mentioned, in most cases, divorces are no-fault, so in most cases in is only logical that there would be an equitable divisions of marital property. And in many cases, the military retirement is one of the largest property values the couple has.

You are sort of arguing that house should not be divisible as property because in every case you know of where a wife asked for a portion of the house, she got it. How does that prove it's wrong exactly?


Judges see the law which says the retired pay can be divided so they do it. This in effect makes the USFSPA the vehicle that divides retired members pay based solely on a mathematical formula.

Judges also see that other marital property can be divided...I don't get why this is wrong.


Now you say that the 10/10 rule isn’t mandatory and again you are technically correct as a judge has pretty wide leeway to make rulings but again, getting those rulings enforced is another matter. A matter of reality. There are simply no realistic enforcement vehicles open to courts in getting the retirement pay divided.

So, you mean civilian have no means to enforce divorce settlments? This only happens to military people?


Admittedly there may be some one-off cases where strange ruling have been made but as a whole the military pay is divided per the USFSPA formula, using the 10/10 rule with no other consideration.

Is there a formula in the USFSPA?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/1408

Once again the 10/10 rule is not about how or if the pay is divided...it is only about how it may be collected after it's orderd divided.


The results are what count here and with the members who grouse at the USFSPA. Also admittedly some feel no ex-spouse should be awarded any portion of the member’s retired pay and I can’t support that because some spouses do indeed support the military career and make sacrifices for it and should be rewarded as the retired member is. Unfortunately regardless of what one thinks the law says of doesn’t say, it is being enforced in a near blanket manner in the mathematical manner any other community property is divided.

Again...your argument is not with the USFSPA...it is with no-fault divorce and state divorce laws.

Is there some reason military divorces should be treated differently than all other divorces?



You were much better off defending your position on a simplified moral ground of all things being fair and equal. I may not agree but understand the position.

That was when I thought you understood what the USFSPA said and did. Unfortunately, it's more difficult to discuss our opinions about certain facts in the law, when those facts are not equally understood.

USN - Retired
08-06-2013, 07:56 PM
First let's deal with one thing. Again I ask, do you know of anyone personally and first hand who has been awarded a portion of a military member’s retirement pay who does not meet the 10/10 rule? The USFSPA was written exactly because courts were not dividing said military pay so in light of this, what judge will ignore the law, specifically the 10/10 rule and award division for marriages shorter in duration?.

Does this youtube video help...

Nine years of marriage...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SMghJ3SONo&list=PLypaIlkb-HtGHrNH8So3h1KIIWNZ6wLjv

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 08:18 PM
Does this youtube video help...

Good one.

I would only say that her experiences of "getting screwed" after putting a spouse through school are not unique to military members...and really has nothing to do with USFSPA.

If she were a civilian...and put him through school while putting money into a 401K and paying off a house...he could just as well divorce her, making tens of thousands more...and get half the house and half the 401K. She would feel equally screwed as she does now. The idea of her having to pay him if she chooses not to retire, also sucks...but again, that's not in the USFSPA one way or another.

If there were no USFSPA at all...she would be in the exact same position she currently is in.

Someone brought up the idea of him having to pay her back for the "value of that education" or something, which I find interesting. Afterall, I think it was Brown vs BOE where the Supreme Court recognized an education as a protected property right under the 14th amendment.

Bunch
08-06-2013, 08:33 PM
I will not be manipulated by your shaming language and personal attacks, so you're wasting your time. You are obviously just trying to draw attention away from the points that I have raised.

I was just giving an example. It will be hard to discuss the law if we can not discuss examples.

The topic of this forum is USFPSA. I am not the topic of this forum. Try to stay on topic. If you want to continue attacking me personally, then start a new thread for that topic.

We want to discuss the same thing. We can give examples without characterizing a group in any way, shape or form. That's all Im saying.

TJMAC77SP
08-06-2013, 08:36 PM
Yes, of course. I don't remember you aksing that...you asked if I knew anyone that DIDN'T get it awarded.

So, yes, I know both...I know people married 7 years that pay their spouse 17.5% of the retirement based on 7 years/20 years service X 50%...AND I know people OVER 10/10 that pay nothing.

Now you really have me confused...first you say you've never met any couple that did NOT have the retirement pay divided...now you are saying there aren't any, under 10 years, that DID have it divided.

Actually I believe that I said I know of no couple first hand or second hand (with your stated example (now examples) as exceptions) who have not had the military retired pay divided when it was sought and truthfully I know of no instance where the 10/10 rule was not met that it was even sought so it of course wasn’t divided.


Is your position that 100% of the people meeting 10/10 get their retirement divided and 100% of the people not meeting it do not get it divided??

You seem to have forgotten to quote my relevant comment that answers that question.

“Admittedly there may be some one-off cases where strange ruling have been made but as a whole the military pay is divided per the USFSPA formula, using the 10/10 rule with no other consideration.”


Incorrect. Military pay had been divided long before the USFSPA came out.

I did not state that retired pay was never divided merely that it was normally not divided. Otherwise why would the USFSPA have been necessary in the first place? Do you consider this to be crucially relevant to the point?


Judges do not have to ignore or follow the law to do that. The law specifically recognizes the right of the courts to divide retirement, regardless of how many years involved. There is nothing in the 10/10 rules that implies, suggests or hints that judges should or should not award retirement.


The devil is most often in the details. This phrase is repeated several times in the law….”Subject to the limitations of this section”

The 10/10 rules is but one of those ‘limitations’


Again, you appear to not understand the 10/10 rule. The whole of that rule is enforceability...and has nothing to do with whether or not the court orders division.

There is some misunderstanding going on here. On that we agree.

Again, the devil is in the details.

“(1) Subject to the limitations of this section, a court may treat disposable retired pay payable to a member…….”

More limitations…….

“(3)This section does not authorize any court to order a member to apply for retirement or retire at a particular time in order to effectuate any payment under this section.
(4)A court may not treat the disposable retired pay of a member in the manner described in paragraph (1) unless the court has jurisdiction over the member by reason of
(A) his residence, other than because of military assignment, in the territorial jurisdiction of the court,
(B) his domicile in the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or
(C) his consent to the jurisdiction of the court.”



How do you think civilians are compelled to pay court orders?
...put a lein on property, etc. As USN stated, if not enforceable under 10/10 the military member could skip the country and it would be very hard for the spouse to collect.

Actually USN was being too drastic (with regard to USFSPA payments). Simply has to be out of the court’s jurisdiction.

I do concede that I suppose a lien would be an enforcement vehicle. Of course any property would be community so the lien would affect both spouses. What other vehicle(s) of enforcement do you think a court can use?


No one? As we've mentioned, in most cases, divorces are no-fault, so in most cases in is only logical that there would be an equitable divisions of marital property. And in many cases, the military retirement is one of the largest property values the couple has.

You are sort of arguing that house should not be divisible as property because in every case you know of where a wife asked for a portion of the house, she got it. How does that prove it's wrong exactly?

No I am not arguing that in any manner. I am speaking only about one issue, the status of military retired pay as community property. The status of the value or potential value of the community property is irrelevant, merely whether it is legally community property. Of course the USFSPA makes it so and thus the root of the contention.


Judges also see that other marital property can be divided...I don't get why this is wrong.

There that is your original argument and one we simply disagree on. I see a difference you don’t.


So, you mean civilian have no means to enforce divorce settlments? This only happens to military people?

You already asked this. Is it a serious question? Do you really believe I think civilian divorce decrees aren’t enforceable? Can you quote me anything I said that leads you to that conclusion regarding my thinking?


Is there a formula in the USFSPA?

Yes, section (d)(2). Where did you think the 10/10 rule came from?


Again...your argument is not with the USFSPA...it is with no-fault divorce and state divorce laws.

No, again, my argument is with the USFSPA.


Is there some reason military divorces should be treated differently than all other divorces?

No, just the retired pay. Again, what exactly did I say that would lead you to believe my comments were wider in intent that my actual words stated?


That was when I thought you understood what the USFSPA said and did.

More JoeB. And I think we both know this is not really about who understands what anymore.

Bunch
08-06-2013, 08:38 PM
Does this youtube video help...

Nine years of marriage...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SMghJ3SONo&list=PLypaIlkb-HtGHrNH8So3h1KIIWNZ6wLjv

Good for her for standing up...

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 08:41 PM
Just remembered another anectdotal story from a friend of mine.

His divorce decree ordered a fixed payment...say $500. Rather than a percentage.

So, after 20 years of paying $500, his ex- takes him back to court saying this amount should have gone up whenever he got a COLA raise on his retirment. I'm not sure if the original decree stated that or not, but he'd just been sending her a $500 check every month.

So...he decides to go into court, explain his side without an attorney. He lost and ended up owing her $40K in back COLA payments. He ended up selling his vacation home in Panama and paying her...2 months later she was killed in a car crash. At least his kids inherited it.

USN - Retired
08-06-2013, 09:00 PM
We want to discuss the same thing. We can give examples without characterizing a group in any way, shape or form. That's all Im saying.

Here's a post of yours that sounds like generalizing...



If we start digging we could probably find that for each case of "my ex-wife is evil and wants my bennies", we could find a case of the mentally/physically abusive, video game addict, alcoholic, do no good, doesn't take care of family, cheater husband that wife had to put of with for years until the kids were old enough and she could have some sense of security.

IMO, if we dig we are going to find more cases of the latter.

Hypocrisy much on your part?

Bunch
08-06-2013, 09:10 PM
Here's a post of yours that sounds like generalizing...



Hypocrisy much on your part?

As a matter fact I didn't. I was theorizing and what "could" we find if we do some research about the wide range of reasons military couples end up in divorce.

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 09:11 PM
Actually I believe that I said I know of no couple first hand or second hand (with your stated example (now examples) as exceptions) who have not had the military retired pay divided when it was sought and truthfully I know of no instance where the 10/10 rule was not met that it was even sought so it of course wasn’t divided.


Again, I find it hard to believe that you don't know of any couple, NOT meeting 10/10 that asked for and got retirement division...this is extremely common, especially with 6, 7, 8, 9 year marriages...probably less so with 1-3 year marriages.


You seem to have forgotten to quote my relevant comment that answers that question.

“Admittedly there may be some one-off cases where strange ruling have been made but as a whole the military pay is divided per the USFSPA formula, using the 10/10 rule with no other consideration.”

Again, you appear to not understand 10/10.


I did not state that retired pay was never divided merely that it was normally not divided. Otherwise why would the USFSPA have been necessary in the first place? Do you consider this to be crucially relevant to the point?

The USFSPA was created in response to the Supreme Court decision on McCarty v. McCarty. Basically, prior to that decision military retirement was often divided...but that case went to the Supreme Court and said that it can't anymore...so Congress used their power to legislate and passed a law that said, 'oh, yes it can.'

McCarty v McCarty: Jun 1981

USFSPA: Sep 1982


The devil is most often in the details. This phrase is repeated several times in the law….”Subject to the limitations of this section”

The 10/10 rules is but one of those ‘limitations’

No, it isn't a limitation on division...it is only a limitation on getting it enforced through DFAS.


There is some misunderstanding going on here. On that we agree.

Again, the devil is in the details.

“(1) Subject to the limitations of this section, a court may treat disposable retired pay payable to a member…….”

More limitations…….

“(3)This section does not authorize any court to order a member to apply for retirement or retire at a particular time in order to effectuate any payment under this section.
(4)A court may not treat the disposable retired pay of a member in the manner described in paragraph (1) unless the court has jurisdiction over the member by reason of
(A) his residence, other than because of military assignment, in the territorial jurisdiction of the court,
(B) his domicile in the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or
(C) his consent to the jurisdiction of the court.”



Right...a court can't order this division unless the court has jurisdiction over the servicemember.



Actually USN was being too drastic (with regard to USFSPA payments). Simply has to be out of the court’s jurisdiction.

Curious about this...so you're saying that if you get sued for $4M, you can simply move out of state and that money can't be collected? I find that hard to believe. I've been sued once and my attorney never posed this solution to me.


I do concede that I suppose a lien would be an enforcement vehicle. Of course any property would be community so the lien would affect both spouses. What other vehicle(s) of enforcement do you think a court can use?

That's probably a biggie...but really, collecting on a deadbeat isn't the problem here. It's a whole other topic of enforcing court orders. For our purposes, if the 10/10 rule is met...it's easy on the spouse, she files her form with DFAS and collects directly.

If 10/10 is not met...collecting is her problem. How much of a pain the member wants to be is also her problem to find whatever legal remedies are available.


No I am not arguing that in any manner. I am speaking only about one issue, the status of military retired pay as community property. The status of the value or potential value of the community property is irrelevant, merely whether it is legally community property. Of course the USFSPA makes it so and thus the root of the contention.

Yes. IMO, it is fair to treat it as marital or community property. Just as a 401K is, or union pension, etc.


There that is your original argument and one we simply disagree on. I see a difference you don’t.

Yes. So your point then is the USFSPA is wrong because former spouses should never be entitled to any of it?


You already asked this. Is it a serious question? Do you really believe I think civilian divorce decrees aren’t enforceable? Can you quote me anything I said that leads you to that conclusion regarding my thinking?

Well, basically the whole idea that you found it amusing that military member, not meeting the 10/10 rule would "voluntarily" write a check to his former spouse. That seemed to imply you were under the impression that if they did NOT meet 10/10, he didn't really have to pay...which would further imply there was no other way to get him to comply...which would furhter imply that DFAS is the only known vehicle in the US to enforce court orders, therefore, there are none for civilians.


Yes, section (d)(2). Where did you think the 10/10 rule came from?

Ah...so you are citing:


(2) If the spouse or former spouse to whom payments are to be made under this section was not married to the member for a period of 10 years or more during which the member performed at least 10 years of service creditable in determining the member’s eligibility for retired pay, payments may not be made under this section to the extent that they include an amount resulting from the treatment by the court under subsection (c) of disposable retired pay of the member as property of the member or property of the member and his spouse.

Which, first of all is not a formula for division...

Secondly, you have to look at the context in which that appears...namely, section (d) which is saying "The Secretary shall make payments..." again, this 10/10 rule is only saying when DOD can make direct payments...

Again, there is no formula for division...did you consider "10 years of more during which the member performed at least 10 years of service..." to be a formula? Using that "formula" what would a court think needed to be divided by what?


No, again, my argument is with the USFSPA.

No, just the retired pay. Again, what exactly did I say that would lead you to believe my comments were wider in intent that my actual words stated?

Will have to get back to this...have to go back and look.


More JoeB. And I think we both know this is not really about who understands what anymore.

If your entire point is that if a couple is married 20 years...and the servicemember leaves his spouse, she should not be entitled to any of his retirement...then that is just a disagreement we have.

But, you seem to think there is something about the 10/10 rule that either prevents, encourages or recommends anything to the courts...and has any bearing on whether or not a court orders division...you are mistaken. Is it possible that some judges out there have a personal feeling about 10 years being a good number and use that...it's possible.

I find it nearly impossible to believe that you've known a good deal of servicemembers and never met one less than 10 years that had their retirement divided. Very hard to believe. Like saying..."okay, it's possible there are dark haired people with blue eyes, but I've never met one.

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 09:58 PM
Also admittedly some feel no ex-spouse should be awarded any portion of the member’s retired pay and I can’t support that because some spouses do indeed support the military career and make sacrifices for it and should be rewarded as the retired member is.

Okay, here is why I think your argument goes beyond USFSPA.

Here you say...there are some cases where a spouse should get retired pay. If that is what you believe, then you pretty much agree with USFSPA.

You go on to say...too often it is automatic without consideration to the marriage dynamics, etc. and is applied across the board.

THAT idea does not come from, originate, or is furthered in any way by the USFSPA...it is within state laws, no-fault divorce, and the courts.

So, let me ask you this...do you believe that all other marital property...house, savings, 401K, intellectual property, etc. should always be divided equitable...or should that also be dependent upon what each spouse "deserves"?


Unfortunately regardless of what one thinks the law says of doesn’t say, it is being enforced in a near blanket manner in the mathematical manner any other community property is divided..

What marital/community property is not divided in a mathematical manner like this?

You say military retirement should be treated differently, but that sometimes a spouse should be entitled to it...can you explain how that would work?

garhkal
08-06-2013, 10:28 PM
Get divorced in Puerto Rico!

Would not do much for me as i am already retired.


Furthermore, if the military spouse is a housewife, then the military service member must pay for his divorce attorney and also his soon-to-be ex-wife's divorce attorney. He has to pay for both attorneys. Since the military service member has to pay ALL of the divorce expenses, the military spouse can simply drag out the divorce process until her hubby runs out of money to pay the divorce attorneys.

??@? Where you getting that from?


Does this youtube video help...

Nice video link, but i wonder why it was only a female complaining, that made it to clips when men have been getting screwed for years...

USN - Retired
08-06-2013, 10:47 PM
As a matter fact I didn't. I was theorizing and what "could" we find if we do some research about the wide range of reasons military couples end up in divorce.

And that is generalizing.

All of your posts lack substance. I will not longer be responding to any further post of yours until you can post something of quality. Have a nice day.

USN - Retired
08-06-2013, 10:52 PM
Curious about this...so you're saying that if you get sued for $4M, you can simply move out of state and that money can't be collected? I find that hard to believe. I've been sued once and my attorney never posed this solution to me. .

There is a big difference. In a case that does not meet the USFSPA 10/10 rule, the family court can not order DFAS to pay retired pay awarded as property directly to the former spouse. That is a big difference because, in those cases that do not meet the USFSPA 10/10 rule, the courts can not grab that money directly.


Actually USN was being too drastic (with regard to USFSPA payments). Simply has to be out of the court’s jurisdiction.

If a retired service member stays in the US, the former military spouse will have an easier time tracking him down. Hiding in the US is much harder than hiding in a foreign country. If she finds him, she may have him served with a subpoena (assuming he isn't paying her the money from his retirement pay), which would be easy if he were still in the US. If the retired guy ignores the subpoena, an arrest warrant may be issued and he may be extradited back to the family court to answer questions. While it would be difficult for an ex-wife to have her ex-hubby extradited from California (for example) back to the family court in Georgia (for example) to answer questions, it would be practically impossible for an ex-wife to have her ex-hubby extradited from Thailand or the Philippines back to the family court in Georgia to answer questions.

Let's look at the "run away" option...

Let's say a retired military guy was ordered by the family court to pay 24% of his monthly retired pay to his ex-wife. Additionally, let's say that his marriage did not meet the USFSPA 10/10 rule. Let's say that he decides to "run away" rather than pay 24% of his retirement every month to his ex-wife till death do them part...

1. The "run away" option would only work if the retired guy is willing to remain hidden from the ex-wife. He would have to be willing to sell or abandon all property in the US. He could never return to the US while the ex-wife is still alive or he may be arrested.

2. The "run away" option would be complicated (and perhaps impossible) if the retired guy and his ex-wife have children.

3. Hiding in the US would be difficult, especially if the retired guy has a job (unless the pay is under the table). He could build a log cabin in the woods and live off the grid. He probably won't have a gorgeous twenty-something sugar baby if he stays in the US.

4. Even overseas, the retired guy would need to remain well hidden. He needs to avoid the subpoenas and he really needs to avoid the arrest warrants. He might have trouble renewing his passport overseas if there is an active arrest warrant in his name. The retired guy could put all the bills in his sugar baby's name and give her money to pay the bills. The retired guy will need to get a PO box in his name at his overseas location (for any correspondence from DFAS, etc). His mail should not be delivered to his home address overseas.

5. Living overseas is cheaper than the US, but it is still expensive. A retired E-6 with 20 years of service might not make enough. Everything would depend on how simple a life a person would be willing to accept.

It might just work. Does anyone know of retired military service member who used the "run away" option? I, myself, do not, and have never heard of anyone trying it. Of course, anyone using the "run away" option would probably be maintaining a low profile.

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 10:58 PM
[
There is a big difference. In a case that does not meet the USFSPA 10/10 rule, the family court can not order DFAS to pay retired pay awarded as property directly to the former spouse. That is a big difference because, in those cases that do not meet the USFSPA 10/10 rule, the courts can not grab that money directly.

Well, there is not a big difference actually. If you get sued and lose $4M to your neighbor...he can not garnish your retirement pay, either.

Depending on your state, he may be able to garnish your wages from other employment...which makes me wonder whether or not a former spouse can garnish and "equivalent" or based on an amount that is owed in arrears or something from your civilian wages.

TJ seemed to be saying that since someone under 10/10 could not be garnished, the member merely needs to move out of the jurisdiction of the court. I don't believe it's that simple...becasue if that's all it took for a military member, then that's all it would take for anyone getting sued and being issued a court order to pay. If it were that simple, no one would ever pay court orders.

Bunch
08-06-2013, 11:04 PM
And that is generalizing.

All of your posts lack substance. I will not longer be responding to any further post of yours until you can post something of quality. Have a nice day.

The reason why they lack substance is because I'm learning about this through you guys. I gave an opinion on the matter from what I have read here but I'm no expert on the matter by any stretch. What I do find discomforting is the tone and generalizations that sometimes is used in some of the post. It detracts from the substantive discussion that is taking place which is a great one.

Have a nice day you too...

Continue on I will go back to lurk mode here...

USN - Retired
08-06-2013, 11:19 PM
[

Well, there is not a big difference actually. If you get sued and lose $4M to your neighbor...he can not garnish your retirement pay, either.

TJ seemed to be saying that since someone under 10/10 could not be garnished, the member merely needs to move out of the jurisdiction of the court. I don't believe it's that simple...becasue if that's all it took for a military member, then that's all it would take for anyone getting sued and being issued a court order to pay. If it were that simple, no one would ever pay court orders.

The family courts could certainly go after other property. The family courts can "order" a military service member to hand over a % of his retirement pay to his ex-wife, but the pay can not be "garnished" directly from DFAS if the USFSPA 10/10 rule has not be met in the marriage (alimony and child support are a different story). Having said that, I certainly don't want to underestimate the ability of a family court judge to make a person's life a living hell. The family court system is the tyranny of our time.

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 11:25 PM
The family courts could certainly go after other property. The family courts can "order" a military service member to hand over a % of his retirement pay to his ex-wife, but the pay can not be "garnished" directly from DFAS if the USFSPA 10/10 rule has not be met in the marriage (alimony and child support are a different story). Having said that, I certainly don't want to underestimate the ability of a family court judge to make a person's life a living hell. The family court system is the tyranny of our time.

Yes, I realize that unless 10/10 rule has been met...that % can NOT be gotten from DFAS.

I'm wondering though, if the court orders the member to pay $700 per month...could the spouse garnish civilian wages for that $700 if the member refuses to pay it? Or if, after 5 years of nonpayment...can she get a court order for $42,000 in arrears and enforce that as a garnishment on his civilian wages. I realize neither one can be obtained through a garnishment on his military retirement pay.

Of course, some states, like TX, do not allow wage garnishment at all, so that isn't a question there (exceptions such as child support, of course)...and yes, when I was being sued, I strongly considered Texas, if things didn't work out in my favor :-)

USN - Retired
08-06-2013, 11:35 PM
Yes, I realize that unless 10/10 rule has been met...that % can NOT be gotten from DFAS.

I'm wondering though, if the court orders the member to pay $700 per month...could the spouse garnish civilian wages for that $700 if the member refuses to pay it? Or if, after 5 years of nonpayment...can she get a court order for $42,000 in arrears and enforce that as a garnishment on his civilian wages. I realize neither one can be obtained through a garnishment on his military retirement pay.

Of course, some states, like TX, do not allow wage garnishment at all, so that isn't a question there (exceptions such as child support, of course).

Interesting question. It probably does vary state to state. As long as a person can avoid the subpoena, I don't think that the family court can touch them. The person would need to avoid that subpoena though. And that brings us back again to the remote tropical resort in SE Asia with the sugar baby and the mai tai.

Measure Man
08-06-2013, 11:44 PM
Interesting question. It probably does vary state to state. As long as a person can avoid the subpoena, I don't think that the family court can touch them. The person would need to avoid that subpoena though. And that brings us back again to the remote tropical resort in SE Asia with the sugar baby and the mai tai.

I'm crossing over into regular civil law now...but if a person can not be found, they can also be served by publication...basically a newspaper ad where that person might be likely to see it, or not...that says, "Hey, you are being sued...come to court."

This is how I was served while I was overseas...and it was a source of contention. Of course, since I was overseas, the suit was essentially stalled under the SCRA until I got back...but the "service" done by publication was still considered valid.

However...in your case of the runaway...even if the spouse finds her man, and serves him...I really don't think they extradite for civil cases...so if he doesn't have any assets in the US, how could she ever collect? I don't even really think they can arrest you and put you in jail EXCEPT for child support.


While the actual methodology for issuing a judgment to a judgment debtor differs from state to state, the mechanics are typically similar. Once a money judgment has been perfected by the issuing court, the judgment creditor then tries to get the judgment debtor to voluntarily pay the judgment. Failing to obtain the cooperation of the judgment debtor, the judgment creditor then determines what property is owned by the judgment debtor and where that property is located. If the property of the judgment debtor is located in the state that issued the judgment, the judgment creditor can then proceed with enforcement. However, when the property of the judgment debtor is located in another state, the judgment creditor may need a sister-state judgment issued by a court in the state in which the property of the judgment debtor is located.

The United States Constitution, under Article IV, section 1 provides that full faith and credit must be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Thus, a judgment issued by one state court must be given full faith and credit by the foreign or sister-state court. Although full faith and credit must be provided to judgments of another state, enforcement actions in the sister-state often requires acts to be taken by authorities in the sister-state (such as Marshals or Sheriffs) who will only follow an order of a court of their home state. For example, a judgment is obtained against a judgment debtor who has a bank account in California; to execute a levy upon the California bank account, the judgment creditor registers a Texas judgment as a California sister-state judgment, obtains a Writ of Execution directing a County Marshal in California to enforce the judgment and the judgment creditor then instructs the County Marshal to perform the bank levy at the bank where the judgment debtor has his/her money. The sister-state judgment is necessary since the Texas court does not have the authority to direct the actions of the County Marshal in California.

To obtain entry of a sister-state judgment, the judgment creditor applies to a court in the state in which the judgment debtor's property is located. Some courts have a particular form which must be used by the judgment creditor and there is typically a requirement that the application for entry of the sister-state judgment be filed in a particular court (i.e. - applications for entry of a sister-state judgment must be made in a Superior Court and not in a Small Claims or Municipal Court). In addition to the application, an authenticated or certified copy of the judgment, issued by the court that originally issued the judgment, must be attached.

After filing the application, the judgment creditor must give the judgment debtor notice of the filing. This enables the judgment debtor to raise certain bars to the issuance of the sister-state judgment, such as defects in the issuance of the judgment or the original judgment is not final and unconditional. If the judgment debtor does nothing, typically the sister-state judgment is issued and then the judgment creditor can pursue all available remedies for enforcement of the judgment in the sister-state.

USN - Retired
08-07-2013, 12:29 AM
However...in your case of the runaway...even if the spouse finds her man, and serves him...I really don't think they extradite for civil cases...so if he doesn't have any assets in the US, how could she ever collect?

Good question...


I don't even really think they can arrest you and put you in jail EXCEPT for child support.

A man can be arrested for failing to pay alimony, assuming he has the money to pay alimony.

If I understand correctly, a family court judge can order a man to take a job, even a really crappy job, in order to pay child support, and the man can be arrested and jailed on contempt of court charges if he doesn't make an honest effort at the job; however, a family court judge can not order a man to take a job in order to pay alimony because that would be considered slavery.

Let's say a retired military guy was ordered by the family court to pay a percentage of his monthly retired pay to his ex-wife and let's say that his marriage did not meet the USFSPA 10/10 rule. Let's say the man doesn't run, he has no assets at all, and he refuses to pay the required percentage of his monthly retired pay to his ex-wife. I'm certain that the family court judge could have him thrown in jail for contempt of court.

----------------------------------------------

If a man should decide to run away to SE Asia, then he should keep in touch with his ex wife. He should send her a photo of his sugar baby eating a big lobster dinner. The following letter should be enclosed with the photo...

Dear ex-wife,
When we were last together in the family court at the time of our divorce, the judge mentioned something about me being required to give you 20% of my military retirement every month until death do us part. Since it has been five years since our divorce, and since I have not sent you anything, I thought that you might be wondering what happened to all the money that I was supposed to be sending you every month. I want to assure you that I have not been spending that money on myself. Instead of spending that money on myself, I have been giving that money to the young lady in the photo. Hopefully, that knowledge will bring you some comfort.
Love,
Your ex hubby.

He might want to ensure that there is no return address on the envelope and mail the letter at a location far away from his residence so the postmark on the letter doesn't reveal his whereabouts.

Measure Man
08-07-2013, 12:48 AM
A man can be arrested for failing to pay alimony, assuming he has the money to pay alimony.

I believe as much


I'm certain that the family court judge could have him thrown in jail for contempt of court.

Debts that are not child support or alimony are less clear...a quick google seems to indicate "Debtor's Prison" is making somewhat of a comeback.

----------------------------------------------


If a man should decide to run away to SE Asia, then he should keep in touch with his ex wife. He should send her a photo of his sugar baby eating a big lobster dinner. The following letter should be enclosed with the photo...

Dear ex-wife,
When we were last together in the family court at the time of our divorce, the judge mentioned something about me being required to give you 20% of my military retirement every month until death do us part. Since it has been five years since our divorce, and since I have not sent you anything, I thought that you might be wondering what happened to all the money that I was supposed to be sending you every month. I want to assure you that I have not been spending that money on myself. Instead of spending that money on myself, I have been giving that money to the young lady in the photo. Hopefully, that knowledge will bring you some comfort.
Love,
Your ex hubby.

He might want to ensure that there is no return address on the envelope and mail the letter at a location far away from his residence so the postmark on the letter doesn't reveal his whereabouts.

If he got away with it for 5 years...I advise him to enjoy himself, and not poke any hornets' nests :-)

TJMAC77SP
08-07-2013, 12:47 PM
Again, I find it hard to believe that you don't know of any couple, NOT meeting 10/10 that asked for and got retirement division...this is extremely common, especially with 6, 7, 8, 9 year marriages...probably less so with 1-3 year marriages.

I know that feeling of incredibility.


Again, you appear to not understand 10/10.

No matter how many times you merely say that it doesn’t become true. I am well aware of the 10/10 rule and its effects.


The USFSPA was created in response to the Supreme Court decision on McCarty v. McCarty. Basically, prior to that decision military retirement was often divided...but that case went to the Supreme Court and said that it can't anymore...so Congress used their power to legislate and passed a law that said, 'oh, yes it can.'
McCarty v McCarty: Jun 1981
USFSPA: Sep 1982

I can’t speak personally as to divisions of military retired pay prior to the McCarty decision but is your position that military retired pay was routinely divided in most courts and in most divorces and then along came McCarty as a single anomaly and thus the USFSPA was written?


No, it isn't a limitation on division...it is only a limitation on getting it enforced through DFAS.

Well sure I guess a judge could ignore the law, knowing that the order would be unenforceable and divide the military retirement any way he/she sees fit. Hell, they could even award 75% of the retired pay to the ex-spouse. What’s your point? My point is the ex-spouse will not get the money (unless the military retiree is generous like your friend).


Curious about this...so you're saying that if you get sued for $4M, you can simply move out of state and that money can't be collected? I find that hard to believe. I've been sued once and my attorney never posed this solution to me.

Where did I imply that? I keep making the assumption we are discussing division and payments of military retired pay under the USFSPA.



That's probably a biggie...but really, collecting on a deadbeat isn't the problem here. It's a whole other topic of enforcing court orders. For our purposes, if the 10/10 rule is met...it's easy on the spouse, she files her form with DFAS and collects directly.

If 10/10 is not met...collecting is her problem. How much of a pain the member wants to be is also her problem to find whatever legal remedies are available. [/QUOTE]
So what legal remedies are available?


Yes. IMO, it is fair to treat it as marital or community property. Just as a 401K is, or union pension, etc.

And this was your original argument which we have always disagreed with.


Yes. So your point then is the USFSPA is wrong because former spouses should never be entitled to any of it?

You are confusing me with other posters. In fact many of my posts say exactly the opposite of that. In fact you even address my position in another post so can I ignore this question.


Well, basically the whole idea that you found it amusing that military member, not meeting the 10/10 rule would "voluntarily" write a check to his former spouse. That seemed to imply you were under the impression that if they did NOT meet 10/10, he didn't really have to pay...which would further imply there was no other way to get him to comply...which would furhter imply that DFAS is the only known vehicle in the US to enforce court orders, therefore, there are none for civilians.

That is a logic jump which I have not alluded to. I have asked you to cite a vehicle of enforcement which an ex-spouse could use (well, the court could use) to get payments in pursuit of an order which violates the USFSPA. That is what we are discussing. Hypothetical $4M lawsuits aside.


Ah...so you are citing:

Which, first of all is not a formula for division...

Secondly, you have to look at the context in which that appears...namely, section (d) which is saying "The Secretary shall make payments..." again, this 10/10 rule is only saying when DOD can make direct payments...

You are correct it isn’t a mathematical formula it merely spells out the parameter with which the DFAS has constructed the formula which is used. Without the parameters there would be no formula. Don’t you think your contention here is a bit specious?


Again, there is no formula for division...did you consider "10 years of more during which the member performed at least 10 years of service..." to be a formula? Using that "formula" what would a court think needed to be divided by what?

See above.


If your entire point is that if a couple is married 20 years...and the servicemember leaves his spouse, she should not be entitled to any of his retirement...then that is just a disagreement we have.

Again, never said that, never hinted at that. You are confusing me with others.


But, you seem to think there is something about the 10/10 rule that either prevents, encourages or recommends anything to the courts...and has any bearing on whether or not a court orders division...you are mistaken. Is it possible that some judges out there have a personal feeling about 10 years being a good number and use that...it's possible.

Well, actually I have stated that a judge can really do whatever they want….in theory. In practice they are well aware that every decision is subject to appeal and overturning so they tend to rule accordingly.


I find it nearly impossible to believe that you've known a good deal of servicemembers and never met one less than 10 years that had their retirement divided. Very hard to believe. Like saying..."okay, it's possible there are dark haired people with blue eyes, but I've never met one.

And again I find it equally implausible that you seem to know of a couple that fits each and every scenario you cite.

TJMAC77SP
08-07-2013, 12:51 PM
Okay, here is why I think your argument goes beyond USFSPA.

Here you say...there are some cases where a spouse should get retired pay. If that is what you believe, then you pretty much agree with USFSPA.

You go on to say...too often it is automatic without consideration to the marriage dynamics, etc. and is applied across the board.

THAT idea does not come from, originate, or is furthered in any way by the USFSPA...it is within state laws, no-fault divorce, and the courts.

So, let me ask you this...do you believe that all other marital property...house, savings, 401K, intellectual property, etc. should always be divided equitable...or should that also be dependent upon what each spouse "deserves"?

Yes and no


What marital/community property is not divided in a mathematical manner like this?

None that I know of.


You say military retirement should be treated differently, but that sometimes a spouse should be entitled to it...can you explain how that would work?

Simple.......apply the same standard with which the military retirement was earned.

Measure Man
08-07-2013, 04:19 PM
I know that feeling of incredibility.

Well, if we both know 100 people...I need only 1 of them to prove my point. You need all 100.

USN already posted a video of a Lt Col who told the SECDEF she was married 9 years and has to pay retirement. I know, I don't personally know her. Are you really not going to be satisfied unless I start posting my friends' name and address? I might be able to introduce you to some on Facebook.


No matter how many times you merely say that it doesn’t become true. I am well aware of the 10/10 rule and its effects.

I can’t speak personally as to divisions of military retired pay prior to the McCarty decision but is your position that military retired pay was routinely divided in most courts and in most divorces and then along came McCarty as a single anomaly and thus the USFSPA was written?

Actually you would have to be arguing that it was an anomaly.

Okay...Look. In McCarty v McCarty the judge ordered a division of retired pay. Let's start there. Do you think this was the first and only judge to do that? Or that it was an anomaly that he did it? I'm saying it was commonly done at that time. Most people accepted it, this guy didn't.

McCarty appealed this ruling all the way to the Supreme Court arguing that it is improper to do so and won.

Your argument, is prior to USFSPA, retirement was NOT divided...then all of a sudden, this one judge in McCarty decided to do it?? No, he was doing what was commonly done....and it took the Supreme Court to get it stopped.


Well sure I guess a judge could ignore the law, knowing that the order would be unenforceable and divide the military retirement any way he/she sees fit. Hell, they could even award 75% of the retired pay to the ex-spouse. What’s your point? My point is the ex-spouse will not get the money (unless the military retiree is generous like your friend).

So, your point is the Lt Col in the posted video simply does not have to pay?

My point is this. That a spouse NOT meeting the 10/10 rule has EVERY available method to collect that a civilian divorcee does. If you think that a military couple NOT meeting 10/10 has to rely solely on the generousity of the paying party...then you must also believe that about civilian divorces.

My point is that...although if a person WANTS to ignore the court order...they can make it difficult on the other party to collect, but there are definitely consequences for it...they might have to skip the country...have no US bank accounts or property that could be levied, etc.


Where did I imply that? I keep making the assumption we are discussing division and payments of military retired pay under the USFSPA.

Because a court order in a lawsuit would have the same effect and repercussions as a court order in a divorce. Your contention seems to be that barring DFAS paying a former spouse, she has no way to get the money. If that were true, the same must be true of all other court orders.


If 10/10 is not met...collecting is her problem. How much of a pain the member wants to be is also her problem to find whatever legal remedies are available.
So what legal remedies are available?[/quote]

Put a lein on his separately owned property, bank accounts...possible she may be able to garnish wages from a civilian job, etc. Turn it over to a collection agency...destroy his credit.


And this was your original argument which we have always disagreed with.

Right. I have no problem with disagreement on that point...I just have a problem with misconceptions you are spreading about the USFSPA.


You are confusing me with other posters. In fact many of my posts say exactly the opposite of that. In fact you even address my position in another post so can I ignore this question.

Yes, retracted.


That is a logic jump which I have not alluded to. I have asked you to cite a vehicle of enforcement which an ex-spouse could use (well, the court could use) to get payments in pursuit of an order which violates the USFSPA. That is what we are discussing. Hypothetical $4M lawsuits aside.

Logic jump previously explained.

An order to split retirement in a 7-year year marriage does NOT, in any way shape or form, violate USFSPA. This is why I keep saying you do not understand the 10/10 rule.


You are correct it isn’t a mathematical formula it merely spells out the parameter with which the DFAS has constructed the formula which is used. Without the parameters there would be no formula. Don’t you think your contention here is a bit specious?

No...because the two things have NOTHING to do with each other. The 10/10 rule is not a paramenter with which DFAS has constructed the fomula. It is merely a collection method.


See above.

Again, never said that, never hinted at that. You are confusing me with others.[/quote]

Copy


Well, actually I have stated that a judge can really do whatever they want….in theory. In practice they are well aware that every decision is subject to appeal and overturning so they tend to rule accordingly.

Yes...and I am saying that it is quite common for retirement pay to be divided for marriages under 10 years.


And again I find it equally implausible that you seem to know of a couple that fits each and every scenario you cite.

Well, USN posted one.

Look, there are basically 2 parts to the USFSPA.

Part 1: States may, but are not required to, divide military retirement pay as property. Stop. This is where the formula comes in...how to divide it. That formula is not in the USFSPA itself, but has arisen out of case law, I believe. There are some guiding documents out there that suggest certain formulas, and it may be in state law. The most popular one, as far as I know...is Years of Marriage/years of service X 50%. As previously illustrated this would provide a 7-year marriage with 17.5% of a 20 year retirement.

Part 2: If the 10/10 rule applies, you can collect it directly from DFAS.

Some state law:


Arkansas

Divisible. Young v. Young, 288 Ark. 33, 701 S.W.2d 369 (1986); but see Durham v. Durham, 289 Ark. 3, 708 S.W.2d 618 (1986) (military retired pay not divisible where the member had not served 20 years at the time of the divorce, and therefore the military pension had not "vested").

So..I understand you probably don't know anyone who got divorced in Arkansas that had a marriage longer than 10 years, but got divorced before 20 years in service. I accept that, but you have to accept that it just might not be that uncommon for someone to meet the 10/10 rule and not be awarded retirement...since if the 20 years wasn't served, they couldn't, in Arkansas.

Measure Man
08-07-2013, 04:25 PM
Yes and no

Thanks for clearing that up.


None that I know of.

Previously you stated that military retirement is divided in a way no other property is. I ask what property is NOT divided like that...and you say none that you know of?


Simple.......apply the same standard with which the military retirement was earned.

They have to pass a PT test?

Measure Man
08-07-2013, 04:32 PM
My wife and I have been married for less than 10 years, and I am in the military. Is it true that she is not entitled to any of my military retirement?
No. Under California law, your spouse is still entitled to a percentage of your military retirement, based upon the following formula:

Number of months of creditable service from date of marriage to date of separation, divided by number of months of creditable service at date of retirement, multiplied by 1/2.

The confusion that arises over this rule is because the Defense Finance and Accounting Service will provide direct enforcement of an order to divide military retirement only if the military service during the marriage was 10 years or more. If that service is less than 10 years, the spouse’s share of the retirement must be paid directly.

So, while I'm sure you don't personally know anyone NOT meeting 10/10 that got divorced in California...you might have to admit, it might NOT be that uncommon for them to be awarded retirement, since it is California state law.




I have a 401(k) plan at my work and my wife has a 403(b) plan at her work. Both of us started working before our marriage. How are these plans divided?

The contributions to the plans prior to marriage, and after the date of separation, are separate property, while the contributions during the marriage and up to the date of separation (including any matching contributions by the employer) are community property. The separate and community contributions may have earnings and losses that must be allocated between separate and community property. An experienced divorce attorney can advise you on the proper way to divide these assets.

I am a member of the California State Teachers’ Retirement System. I have heard there are two different ways of dividing the community interest in my future retirement benefits. What are those ways?
The laws governing CalSTRS, like those governing a similar plan called the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, are complicated and can be confusing. The simplest explanation is that during the dissolution proceeding, the non-member spouse can choose whether the court order will instruct CalSTRS to divide the community property service credit and contributions, or to use a formula to divide the retirement benefit of the member spouse at the time of retirement. These are important decisions, and both spouses need to obtain expert advice from an attorney who is familiar with these retirement plans.

What is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order? This order, commonly referred to as a “QDRO,” is a court order for division of retirement plans that are governed by a federal law known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). This federal law sets minimum standards for employer-established pension and retirement plans. It also sets requirements for QDROs which are used to divide retirement plans in a divorce or legal separation proceeding. The requirements for a QDRO are complicated, and each employer has its own procedures and model orders. It is important to get legal advice from an attorney who has knowledge and experience with these complex issues.

Gee, everyone else getting treated the same as military...

Source: http://www.cadivorcelaw.com/retirement-pension-division.html

Measure Man
08-07-2013, 04:42 PM
Military Divorce: What the 10/10 Rule Really Means
Posted on April 16, 2013 by James M. Burns

Military divorce poses unique issues, so having a qualified military divorce attorney with extensive experience helping clients weather the many rules of military divorce is a must to ensure that your interests are fully protected. One of the most difficult and contentious aspects in any divorce is the division of assets, and with a military divorce, there are specific rules that apply, including the often misunderstood 10/10 rule. Pensacola military divorce attorney James M. Burns practices law in Florida and Alabama and has amassed decades of experience providing representation for clients involved in military divorce proceedings. Be sure to equip yourself with the expertise of a qualified military divorce lawyer before entering into divorce proceedings.

A rule known as the 10/10 Rule is often a part of military divorce, but its true intent and application is often misunderstood. The 10/10 refers to the couple having been married for at least 10 years and the service member having served at least 10 years in the military towards retirement eligibility. When a portion of the service member’s retirement pay is ordered to the former spouse in a final divorce decree, the 10/10 Rule allows payments on that divided retirement pay to be enforced under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA). In other words, the 10/10 Rule does not dictate or affect any rulings or judgments; the rule only applies to how the former spouse receives the portion of the service member’s retirement pay to which he or she is entitled.

The Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA) was enacted in 1982 to accomplish two things:

1. The right of state courts to distribute military retirement pay to a former spouse

2. Provide a method of enforcing such orders through the Department of Defense (DOD)


The USFSPA does not provide automatic entitlement to the former spouse in terms of the service member’s retirement pay; rather, it supports and enforcements the judgment made in the final divorce decree by the court that had jurisdiction over the service member and provides options for the former spouse to receive payment of their share of retirement pay.

Pensacola military divorce attorney James M. Burns has extensive experience handling property division associated with military divorce, as well as all other aspects and requirements involved in military divorce proceedings. When you need smart, savvy legal representation in a military divorce, Pensacola attorney James M. Burns is well-versed in military divorce and will protect your interests above all others.

Source: http://pensacoladefenselawyer.com/2013/04/16/military-divorce-what-the-1010-rule-really-means/

TJMAC77SP
08-08-2013, 12:26 PM
Well, if we both know 100 people...I need only 1 of them to prove my point. You need all 100.

USN already posted a video of a Lt Col who told the SECDEF she was married 9 years and has to pay retirement. I know, I don't personally know her. Are you really not going to be satisfied unless I start posting my friends' name and address? I might be able to introduce you to some on Facebook.



Actually you would have to be arguing that it was an anomaly.

Okay...Look. In McCarty v McCarty the judge ordered a division of retired pay. Let's start there. Do you think this was the first and only judge to do that? Or that it was an anomaly that he did it? I'm saying it was commonly done at that time. Most people accepted it, this guy didn't.

McCarty appealed this ruling all the way to the Supreme Court arguing that it is improper to do so and won.

Your argument, is prior to USFSPA, retirement was NOT divided...then all of a sudden, this one judge in McCarty decided to do it?? No, he was doing what was commonly done....and it took the Supreme Court to get it stopped.



So, your point is the Lt Col in the posted video simply does not have to pay?

My point is this. That a spouse NOT meeting the 10/10 rule has EVERY available method to collect that a civilian divorcee does. If you think that a military couple NOT meeting 10/10 has to rely solely on the generousity of the paying party...then you must also believe that about civilian divorces.

My point is that...although if a person WANTS to ignore the court order...they can make it difficult on the other party to collect, but there are definitely consequences for it...they might have to skip the country...have no US bank accounts or property that could be levied, etc.



Because a court order in a lawsuit would have the same effect and repercussions as a court order in a divorce. Your contention seems to be that barring DFAS paying a former spouse, she has no way to get the money. If that were true, the same must be true of all other court orders.


So what legal remedies are available?

Put a lein on his separately owned property, bank accounts...possible she may be able to garnish wages from a civilian job, etc. Turn it over to a collection agency...destroy his credit.



Right. I have no problem with disagreement on that point...I just have a problem with misconceptions you are spreading about the USFSPA.



Yes, retracted.



Logic jump previously explained.

An order to split retirement in a 7-year year marriage does NOT, in any way shape or form, violate USFSPA. This is why I keep saying you do not understand the 10/10 rule.



No...because the two things have NOTHING to do with each other. The 10/10 rule is not a paramenter with which DFAS has constructed the fomula. It is merely a collection method.



Again, never said that, never hinted at that. You are confusing me with others.

Copy



Yes...and I am saying that it is quite common for retirement pay to be divided for marriages under 10 years.



Well, USN posted one.

Look, there are basically 2 parts to the USFSPA.

Part 1: States may, but are not required to, divide military retirement pay as property. Stop. This is where the formula comes in...how to divide it. That formula is not in the USFSPA itself, but has arisen out of case law, I believe. There are some guiding documents out there that suggest certain formulas, and it may be in state law. The most popular one, as far as I know...is Years of Marriage/years of service X 50%. As previously illustrated this would provide a 7-year marriage with 17.5% of a 20 year retirement.

Part 2: If the 10/10 rule applies, you can collect it directly from DFAS.

Some state law:



So..I understand you probably don't know anyone who got divorced in Arkansas that had a marriage longer than 10 years, but got divorced before 20 years in service. I accept that, but you have to accept that it just might not be that uncommon for someone to meet the 10/10 rule and not be awarded retirement...since if the 20 years wasn't served, they couldn't, in Arkansas.

Ok, Joe is really gone so the freshness date on these multi-quote posts is long past.

Here is the crux of this entire exchange……and all the previous ones on the same subject.

You believe military retirement pay is community property in the same light as any contributory pension, 401(k) or other annuity in which marital assets ($$) were used to fund it. I see that as fundamentally flawed logic.

To support this position you often cite that the USFSPA does not mandate the division but merely allows for this division. I say that, while true is a specious argument because in general fact, that is to say in the vast majority of divorces the judge merely considers the retirement pay as community property and divides it. The end result is the same as if it were mandated.

Now this has degenerated into discussions of what the 10/10 rule means, where the formula resides, who gets retirement pay divided when the 10/10 rule isn’t met. All distractions. You are correct, there is no formula in the USFSPA but really? Won’t concede the very basis of the formula lies in the section I cited? How important is that to the original discussion.

How about this……I concede I have very poorly stated in several instances the mechanics of the USFSPA.

We could have arguments about enforceability all day. You give me an example…. Put a lein (sic) on his separately owned property (some states won’t allow that on a domicile or isn’t enforceable until a sale is attempted). Possible she may be able to garnish wages from a civilian job, (yes that might work….until no longer employed there). Turn it over to a collection agency...destroy his credit (yes and the ex-spouse still isn’t getting any retired pay). Bottom line, without DFAS payment it isn’t a simple exercise therefore there is no need to escape the country. All distractions.

I truly don’t know a single person in either situation you have cited. No one I know has been able to keep their entire pension if the 10/10 rule is met and no one I know sought the pension if the 10/10 rule was not met. One off anomalies are of course possible but since we are having a general discussion of the USFSPA and its effects I am not sure how relevant.

I do know someone who had to pay child support for a child which admittedly (and admitted in court) wasn’t his. I wouldn’t use this as an example of common practice.

TJMAC77SP
08-08-2013, 12:31 PM
Thanks for clearing that up.



Previously you stated that military retirement is divided in a way no other property is. I ask what property is NOT divided like that...and you say none that you know of?



They have to pass a PT test?

I am confused, Where did I state "military retirement is divided in a way no other property is"? Seriously. My point is that (And I am quite surprised that you don't know that by now since I have repeated it for what I believe is about three years we have had this same discussion) that military retired pay is like no other property in a divorce and is, in fact not community property (although of course my opinion is of course not support by current law).

No, not a PT test. Care to gues again?

Measure Man
08-08-2013, 03:52 PM
Ok, Joe is really gone so the freshness date on these multi-quote posts is long past.

Here is the crux of this entire exchange……and all the previous ones on the same subject.

You believe military retirement pay is community property in the same light as any contributory pension, 401(k) or other annuity in which marital assets ($$) were used to fund it. I see that as fundamentally flawed logic.

This is merely personal opinion...and no amount of factual exchange will change our minds, Im sure.


To support this position you often cite that the USFSPA does not mandate the division but merely allows for this division. I say that, while true is a specious argument because in general fact, that is to say in the vast majority of divorces the judge merely considers the retirement pay as community property and divides it. The end result is the same as if it were mandated.

This is where I say, the fact that 50 states have taken them up on it...is an argument about the state of no-fault divorce, and divorce laws in general, not in the USFSPA.


Now this has degenerated into discussions of what the 10/10 rule means, where the formula resides, who gets retirement pay divided when the 10/10 rule isn’t met. All distractions. You are correct, there is no formula in the USFSPA but really? Won’t concede the very basis of the formula lies in the section I cited? How important is that to the original discussion.

No, I will not concede that because it is completely incorrect. If it's not important to you, then fine. It does appear there are some casual observers reading our posts here, so I do think it's important that the facts are properly represented.

In reading your posts...there may be a spouse out there married for 8 years that believes she has no entitlement to any retirement and no way to collect if she did. Which, depending on his/her state, are probably completely inaccurate.

In reading your posts...there may be a military member married more than 10 years that believes his spouse is entitled to half his retirement. Which, depending on his/her state, may be inaccurate.


How about this……I concede I have very poorly stated in several instances the mechanics of the USFSPA.

This was the crux of why I have continued to debate this.


We could have arguments about enforceability all day. You give me an example…. Put a lein (sic) on his separately owned property (some states won’t allow that on a domicile or isn’t enforceable until a sale is attempted). Possible she may be able to garnish wages from a civilian job, (yes that might work….until no longer employed there). Turn it over to a collection agency...destroy his credit (yes and the ex-spouse still isn’t getting any retired pay). Bottom line, without DFAS payment it isn’t a simple exercise therefore there is no need to escape the country. All distractions.

I truly don’t know a single person in either situation you have cited. No one I know has been able to keep their entire pension if the 10/10 rule is met and no one I know sought the pension if the 10/10 rule was not met. One off anomalies are of course possible but since we are having a general discussion of the USFSPA and its effects I am not sure how relevant.

They are not distractions. Your belief that judges rarely or never award retirement for marriages not meeting 10/10 is completely wrong. We can go back and forth who knows how many people...but, I know for sure that is incorrect. If you say you don't know anyone in that situation, I'll take you at your word...but what I'm saying is that your experience is the anomaly, not the other way around. I have already shown you that California law states it is divisible...

The other case of couples meeting the 10/10 and retirement not divided...yes that would be unusual, but it does happen and it happened to my best friend. Yes, if pushed in court he probably couldn't have gotten away with it. The point being, if someone out there has been married 15 years or whatever...don't think it is not possible to save your retirement. It's all in the negotiations.


I do know someone who had to pay child support for a child which admittedly (and admitted in court) wasn’t his. I wouldn’t use this as an example of common practice.

Perhaps not, but a share of the retirement at 7,8 and 9 years is common practice. That is my position.

Shaken1976
08-08-2013, 04:00 PM
So here is a question maybe someone can answer. My soon to be ex is medically retired and 80% disabled. We were married 7 years. He keeps threatening to take my retirement. (Guess I could get his too). Now here is the deal and reason for our divorce... drug use, alcohol abuse, infidelity, and much more on his part. My lawyer says he isn't getting a penny from me.

The soon to be ex goes back and forth on agreeing to my terms of the divorce which is basically half of the debt that I have not yet paid off. Apparently I am entitled to quite a bit more as I have paid off a substantial amount in the last year without him. But I don't care about that. But is there anyway any judge would give him any money?

Measure Man
08-08-2013, 04:04 PM
I am confused, Where did I state "military retirement is divided in a way no other property is"? Seriously.

Okay, i misread


Unfortunately regardless of what one thinks the law says of doesn’t say, it is being enforced in a near blanket manner in the mathematical manner any other community property is divided.

To which I now respond. Of course it is.


My point is that (And I am quite surprised that you don't know that by now since I have repeated it for what I believe is about three years we have had this same discussion) that military retired pay is like no other property in a divorce and is, in fact not community property (although of course my opinion is of course not support by current law).

That point I got a long time ago and have not argued it. I disagree. I know it is not exactly like any other community property. A family home is not exactly like any other property either. I know there are some good arguments for why military retirement shouldn't be property. I have heard them, read them and understand them. I still disagree.


No, not a PT test. Care to gues again?

My guess would be you'd say 20 years. So, my guess is you think it is fair and right that a couple married 19 years, during which they raised 3 children and the spouse followed her GI around for 19 years, took care of the kids and they planned their financial future together banking on the military retirement, ...and he decideds to run off with another woman, she should not be be entited to any of it, since she didn't hit 20 years.

Am I close?

Measure Man
08-08-2013, 04:10 PM
So here is a question maybe someone can answer. My soon to be ex is medically retired and 80% disabled. We were married 7 years. He keeps threatening to take my retirement. (Guess I could get his too). Now here is the deal and reason for our divorce... drug use, alcohol abuse, infidelity, and much more on his part. My lawyer says he isn't getting a penny from me.

The soon to be ex goes back and forth on agreeing to my terms of the divorce which is basically half of the debt that I have not yet paid off. Apparently I am entitled to quite a bit more as I have paid off a substantial amount in the last year without him. But I don't care about that. But is there anyway any judge would give him any money?

Yes, most likely he can get it.

Getting his would be more difficult. I don't know exactly how medical retirements work, but disability payments are not divisible in divorce. Those are solely his. Does he actually get retirement payments over and above his disability payments?

Here's the deal on your divorce...most likely it is a no-fault divorce...so all those issues are not going to come into play. If he offers you a deal that does not include your retirement, I'd say take it.

Shaken1976
08-08-2013, 04:14 PM
Yes, most likely he can get it.

Getting his would be more difficult. I don't know exactly how medical retirements work, but disability payments are not divisible in divorce. Those are solely his. Does he actually get retirement payments over and above his disability payments?

Here's the deal on your divorce...most likely it is a no-fault divorce...so all those issues are not going to come into play. If he offers you a deal that does not include your retirement, I'd say take it.

He actually owes me well over $50k. He took money out of my account, took out tons of loans in both names, and much more. I paid off almost all of it because I don't want my credit ruined. But there is still some left.

He does get a separate retirement paycheck. But thinks a judge won't touch it because of disability. I am not out for blood. I want half of the debt that is left. Then I want him to leave me alone and quit threatening me with stupid stuff. I have been doing a little bit of reading...Texas is a no fault state..but with proof of everything the judge could decide to divide assets and debts as he sees fit.

Measure Man
08-08-2013, 04:29 PM
He actually owes me well over $50k. He took money out of my account, took out tons of loans in both names, and much more. I paid off almost all of it because I don't want my credit ruined. But there is still some left.

He does get a separate retirement paycheck. But thinks a judge won't touch it because of disability. I am not out for blood. I want half of the debt that is left. Then I want him to leave me alone and quit threatening me with stupid stuff. I have been doing a little bit of reading...Texas is a no fault state..but with proof of everything the judge could decide to divide assets and debts as he sees fit.

Good luck.

20+Years
08-08-2013, 04:49 PM
I think you will be fine if its a half-way decent judge. You have shown that you are responsible and trying to take care of things such as the debt. Your soon to be x on the other hand.... wants more from you? Doesn't give me a warm fuzzy about him.

If you get a no-contest divorce your lawyers just have to agree to the terms, you go to court, done. If its contested, then the judge will have to make a decision. The true advice I can give you is SHOW UP TO COURT even if its non-contested. In Texas, I went, my x didn't show up. I asked the judge face to face if he would delay child support starting for the next three months since my daughter was staying with me until her mother resettled. He was like, "done".

So, just make sure you are in attendance to request, or hear a request, for any last second changes.

Measure Man
08-08-2013, 05:42 PM
I don't know much about this subject because James and I have our own money and our own retirement as well as James has an education and career that will follow retirement from the military but I will comment on the fact that his first wife was married to him 7 years and the divorce court awarded her 1/2 of his retirement. She then went on to marry the soldier she left him for and was married to him for 8 years and got half his retirement. Now this woman has never served nor did she work but due to children she gets $2000. a month child support from us and another thousand from the second soldier and full retirement by getting half of both mens retirement. There is just something wrong with this!

So, you mean to say that this woman, was in two marriages that did not meet the 10/10 rule...yet, she was awarded a portion of the retirement in both?

Just curious...why do they pay her?

Not counting child support...we all know not paying child support can put you in jail.

Will your husband pay her after he retires? Why or why not?

Measure Man
08-08-2013, 05:49 PM
I had a ex that left after 9 years of marriage, probably 12 years AD. Luckily I waited her out. I wouldn't sign and she was wanting to marry (again) to a bigger money bag than me. She finally signed off of my mil ret. I was young enough to probably bale if she would have been awarded it. Didn't get married again until about 18 1/2 years AD because of this. (Shhhhh ,Don't tell my current wife)

So, do you mean the divorce was final at 9 years? Or she left at nine years, but you waited her out and got divorced after more than 10 years of marriage?

TJMAC77SP
08-08-2013, 07:26 PM
My guess would be you'd say 20 years. So, my guess is you think it is fair and right that a couple married 19 years, during which they raised 3 children and the spouse followed her GI around for 19 years, took care of the kids and they planned their financial future together banking on the military retirement, ...and he decideds to run off with another woman, she should not be be entited to any of it, since she didn't hit 20 years.

Am I close?

No but now I understand you weren't really channeling Joe and being obtuse. I apologize for that.

Faithful and honorable (service). I don't mean literal service (before some women here take offense)

I know that considering military retirement pay yet another community property asset makes this seem over the top but I clearly remember the publicity campaign conducted by supporters of the USFSPA (led mainly by but not exclusively Rep Pat Schroeder). At the hearing for the various (House and Senate bills which eventually became the USFSPA the list of witnesses was restricted to one (1) military organization opposed to the bills while two (2) small women's organizations representing affirmative action were allowed to provide testimony. From that date forward, until the proposal was adopted by the Senate Armed Services Committee, none of the hearings scheduled by the Senate Armed Services Committee's Manpower and Personnel Subcommittee included as a witness a representative of an opposing military organization. Only witnesses favoring the ex-spouses' proposals were invited to testify.

This is where the panel heard from ex-spouses like a retired colonel’s wife who after decades of following him around the globe, joining every officer wives club, socializing as necessary to advance his career he dumps her for a younger woman. Schroeder also made sure the news outlets covered these ex-spouses and their stories. All horrible stories or equally horrible treatment. If the argument is that military retired pay is merely another community property asset then such stories are unnecessary. They instead are emotional appeals to a higher sense of right and wrong. A fine thing except no such examples were put forward of the cheating spouse who is at the club every time the military spouse is away (and often not waiting until their absence).

The other facet of the argument in favor of the bill was the lost career abandoned to follow the military spouse around the globe. Sounds fair on the surface and often true. Of course then there are the instances where better employment was obtained by the spouse because of the military service. Usually based on happenstance of location. My ex-wife fits this description. When I met her she was in a low paying administrative job. It was the only kind of job she had ever held since leaving high school. While stationed overseas she obtained a job requiring a cleared US Citizen. With that experience (admin to an O-6), she obtained a better paying (cleared) administrative job at our next stateside base. Using that work and pay history she obtained a comparably compensated job in another city when we divorced. One could argue quite easily (and accurately) that she benefited career wise by my military career. Certainly the opposite is anything but true.

If you remember the nature of military retired pay (earned). A position which the courts held for almost a century, it seems fair and equitable to apply the same standard in awarding it (or not awarding it). If the ex-spouse was indeed an asset to the military career which earns the military member his or her retirement then by all means divide the retirement. If not, why reward bad behavior. Such bad behavior on my part wouldn’t have resulted in the retirement pay I now receive.

Measure Man
08-08-2013, 07:43 PM
No but now I understand you weren't really channeling Joe and being obtuse. I apologize for that.

Faithful and honorable (service). I don't mean literal service (before some women here take offense)

I know that considering military retirement pay yet another community property asset makes this seem over the top but I clearly remember the publicity campaign conducted by supporters of the USFSPA (led mainly by but not exclusively Rep Pat Schroeder). At the hearing for the various (House and Senate bills which eventually became the USFSPA the list of witnesses was restricted to one (1) military organization opposed to the bills while two (2) small women's organizations representing affirmative action were allowed to provide testimony. From that date forward, until the proposal was adopted by the Senate Armed Services Committee, none of the hearings scheduled by the Senate Armed Services Committee's Manpower and Personnel Subcommittee included as a witness a representative of an opposing military organization. Only witnesses favoring the ex-spouses' proposals were invited to testify.

This is where the panel heard from ex-spouses like a retired colonel’s wife who after decades of following him around the globe, joining every officer wives club, socializing as necessary to advance his career he dumps her for a younger woman. Schroeder also made sure the news outlets covered these ex-spouses and their stories. All horrible stories or equally horrible treatment. If the argument is that military retired pay is merely another community property asset then such stories are unnecessary. They instead are emotional appeals to a higher sense of right and wrong. A fine thing except no such examples were put forward of the cheating spouse who is at the club every time the military spouse is away (and often not waiting until their absence).

The other facet of the argument in favor of the bill was the lost career abandoned to follow the military spouse around the globe. Sounds fair on the surface and often true. Of course then there are the instances where better employment was obtained by the spouse because of the military service. Usually based on happenstance of location. My ex-wife fits this description. When I met her she was in a low paying administrative job. It was the only kind of job she had ever held since leaving high school. While stationed overseas she obtained a job requiring a cleared US Citizen. With that experience (admin to an O-6), she obtained a better paying (cleared) administrative job at our next stateside base. Using that work and pay history she obtained a comparably compensated job in another city when we divorced. One could argue quite easily (and accurately) that she benefited career wise by my military career. Certainly the opposite is anything but true.

If you remember the nature of military retired pay (earned). A position which the courts held for almost a century, it seems fair and equitable to apply the same standard in awarding it (or not awarding it). If the ex-spouse was indeed an asset to the military career which earns the military member his or her retirement then by all means divide the retirement. If not, why reward bad behavior. Such bad behavior on my part wouldn’t have resulted in the retirement pay I now receive.

I can not say that I personally recall any of the congressional debate on this.

For every USFSPA supporter that parades the distraught wives...a USFSPA opponent parades a downtrodden servicemember.

Okay...so your proposal is that is a spouse was faithful and honorable in her service, she should be allowed a portion of the retirement. If not then not.

Obviously, by now, we both understand that the USFSPA allows states to do just that...or not do that. So, I am assuming you would prefer federal law to tell states what they can or can not do with military retirement, or the things they must follow before doing so. i.e. "Thus state must consider the spouse's condition of service to be honorable before awarding a portion of the retirement, whether or not the spouse's employment was impacted, etc."

I believe this is the federal government too far into state government's business. This is beyond the Constitutional powers of the federal government. (Not that it has stopped them before.). Deciding on the quality of marital contribution and how much that should or should not weight in equitable distribution is not a federal question. Hijacking it simply because one of the parties in the civil dispute draws federal benefits would not be proper, IMO. Why should the feds impose these restrictions on states for military divorces, but not any others?

I also think that USFSPA opponents would have better luck arguing at the state-level to get their particlar state's divorce laws changed, as they are free to do. Every single case where a downtrodden servicemember is paraded as having been screwed "due to USFSPA" is misguided. The member was screwed in their state's court.

Shaken1976
08-08-2013, 07:55 PM
So, you mean to say that this woman, was in two marriages that did not meet the 10/10 rule...yet, she was awarded a portion of the retirement in both?

Just curious...why do they pay her?

Not counting child support...we all know not paying child support can put you in jail.

Will your husband pay her after he retires? Why or why not?

What happens if a military member marries someone...gets divorced and the ex gets half of his retirement... then he remarries...can the new wife also get part of his retirement?

garhkal
08-08-2013, 08:08 PM
I do know someone who had to pay child support for a child which admittedly (and admitted in court) wasn’t his. I wouldn’t use this as an example of common practice.

Heck, in some states, even after the kid has been proven not yours, if you were already paying child support, you still are required.

TJMAC77SP
08-08-2013, 08:10 PM
I can not say that I personally recall any of the congressional debate on this.

For every USFSPA supporter that parades the distraught wives...a USFSPA opponent parades a downtrodden servicemember.

Okay...so your proposal is that is a spouse was faithful and honorable in her service, she should be allowed a portion of the retirement. If not then not.

Obviously, by now, we both understand that the USFSPA allows states to do just that...or not do that. So, I am assuming you would prefer federal law to tell states what they can or can not do with military retirement, or the things they must follow before doing so. i.e. "Thus state must consider the spouse's condition of service to be honorable before awarding a portion of the retirement, whether or not the spouse's employment was impacted, etc."

I believe this is the federal government too far into state government's business. This is beyond the Constitutional powers of the federal government. (Not that it has stopped them before.). Deciding on the quality of marital contribution and how much that should or should not weight in equitable distribution is not a federal question. Hijacking it simply because one of the parties in the civil dispute draws federal benefits would not be proper, IMO. Why should the feds impose these restrictions on states for military divorces, but not any others?

I also think that USFSPA opponents would have better luck arguing at the state-level to get their particlar state's divorce laws changed, as they are free to do. Every single case where a downtrodden servicemember is paraded as having been screwed "due to USFSPA" is misguided. The member was screwed in their state's court.

I agree that it is far afield for the federal government but at this point even some guidance to the state courts would be better than what is there. That ship has also already sailed. The Supreme Court made a ruling, Congress (or portions thereof) didn't like it so passed the USFPA. Without that federal law military retirements would not be divided. There is a (IMO) a failed logic in lumping military retirement into the community property pot and that needs to be fixed. I would like to see a fair fix but what we have now is just not right. I never balked at paying child support, even to my first wife who I knew was not using the full amount for care of my oldest son. It is what a parent should do. Hell I have even helped my second wife (who is getting the retirement portion) gather the paperwork and file it. The law is the law. I am not going to be a prick in the interest of making a point but that doesn't change my mind of the lack of fairness (or logic) in the current law.

Measure Man
08-08-2013, 08:21 PM
What happens if a military member marries someone...gets divorced and the ex gets half of his retirement... then he remarries...can the new wife also get part of his retirement?

Yes.

There are limits to how much can be gotten directly from DFAS...I think 50% in retirement and 65% total of retirement, alimony, and child support.

But, the military member could still be required by the court to pay it.

Shaken1976
08-08-2013, 08:27 PM
Yes.

There are limits to how much can be gotten directly from DFAS...I think 50% in retirement and 65% total of retirement, alimony, and child support.

But, the military member could still be required by the court to pay it.

That is CRAZY. At that point it seems it would make sense to punch with nothing at 19.5. I have heard of women going from military spouse to military spouse and collecting retirement. Seems if that is a trend it could be proven.

Measure Man
08-08-2013, 08:30 PM
I agree that it is far afield for the federal government but at this point even some guidance to the state courts would be better than what is there.

I believe it is you and your attorney's job to provide guidance to the court, using both the USFSPA and your state law. Particularly since the federal govt. could not do so without intruding into state law.

It is true that many judges may not be well versed in military retirement. That can be true of every law. Judges can not be well-versed in everything, which is why attorney's should inform them. This is why you need an attorney that is well-versed in the laws most applicable to your case. This is why you have injury attorney's that specialize in car accidents, or worker's comp. You have criminal lawyers that specialize in DUI, or homicide, or sexual assault. You have divorce lawyers that specialize in military divorces.


That ship has also already sailed. The Supreme Court made a ruling, Congress (or portions thereof) didn't like it so passed the USFPA. Without that federal law military retirements would not be divided.

Yes, and even you say there are times when it should


There is a (IMO) a failed logic in lumping military retirement into the community property pot and that needs to be fixed. I would like to see a fair fix but what we have now is just not right.

I don't see it as a logic fail, just a difference of opinion as to whether or not you are earning your retirement with each year spent on active duty or not.


I never balked at paying child support, even to my first wife who I knew was not using the full amount for care of my oldest son. It is what a parent should do. Hell I have even helped my second wife (who is getting the retirement portion) gather the paperwork and file it. The law is the law. I am not going to be a prick in the interest of making a point but that doesn't change my mind of the lack of fairness (or logic) in the current law.

Interestingly enough, my divorce decree required me to assist my ex- in doing the retirement paperwork through DFAS. I'm guessing the judge had some previous experience with a spouse having a difficult time navigating the DFAS system...becasue neither of us asked for that to be in there.

TSgt"M"
08-08-2013, 08:39 PM
So, do you mean the divorce was final at 9 years? Or she left at nine years, but you waited her out and got divorced after more than 10 years of marriage?

Divorce was final at more than 10 years.

Measure Man
08-08-2013, 09:01 PM
That is CRAZY. At that point it seems it would make sense to punch with nothing at 19.5. I have heard of women going from military spouse to military spouse and collecting retirement. Seems if that is a trend it could be proven.

It does seem that way...sort of. Though I do not think it is a trend.

Here is another way to look at it.

You marry a neurosurgeon. He makes fabulous money. While married for 6 years, you as a couple, manage to sock away $500K. When you get divorced, half of that $500K is yours...even though he was the one that went into surgery every day. By virtue of being married, you are a joint entity in that property. Okay, so after your divorce, you marry and anesthesiologist. Same deal...married for 7 years and have $500K in savings. Guess what...half of that $500K is also yours.

So, after your second divorce you have $500K of your own even though you've never spent a day in medical school, and never served a day in a hospital. It's a matter of opinion whether or not that is "fair." Now one of the nice things about military retirement vs. this deal. Let's say you marry a third time and die shortly afterwards. In this scenario, your third husband would now be $500K richer. In the military scenario, those retirement payments revert back to the orignial servicemember from which they came.

This is what marriage is. This is why I advise people to marry wisely...as I posted in the advice thread. This is also why I say people arguing about cases like the one you presented, have more of an argument with the entire divorce situation in the country, or their particular state, not really with USFSPA which mandates none of this.

But yes, if I had been married and divorce twice and were losing a lot more retirement than I'd be getting...one might considering taking a personal loss to avoid seeing that large check go out to people you hate.


"After my 4th divorce, I've decided I'm going to save myself from future heartache and get right to the end result. Instead of getting married, I will go out every 5 years, find a woman I hate and buy her a house." ~ Johnny Carson (paraphrased, I don't have the exact quote)

garhkal
08-08-2013, 09:02 PM
Yes.

There are limits to how much can be gotten directly from DFAS...I think 50% in retirement and 65% total of retirement, alimony, and child support.

But, the military member could still be required by the court to pay it.

So technically the Service member who EARNED that retirement could be (if he was married and divorced twice or more) receiving NOTHING as it is all being paid out to his/her exes? Dat's screwed up.


That is CRAZY. At that point it seems it would make sense to punch with nothing at 19.5. I have heard of women going from military spouse to military spouse and collecting retirement. Seems if that is a trend it could be proven.

Exactly. I think we all have heard stories of women doing this (and rarely even a man)..


Divorce was final at more than 10 years.

Sounds like one of the gals i worked with at NCTC bahrain. Married for 9 yrs, and was trying to divorce her conniving a**hat of a hubby. But he dragged it out for over a year just to hit that 10/10 rule..

Shaken1976
08-08-2013, 09:15 PM
It does seem that way...sort of. Though I do not think it is a trend.

Here is another way to look at it.

You marry a neurosurgeon. He makes fabulous money. While married for 6 years, you as a couple, manage to sock away $500K. When you get divorced, half of that $500K is yours...even though he was the one that went into surgery every day. By virtue of being married, you are a joint entity in that property. Okay, so after your divorce, you marry and anesthesiologist. Same deal...married for 7 years and have $500K in savings. Guess what...half of that $500K is also yours.

So, after your second divorce you have $500K of your own even though you've never spent a day in medical school, and never served a day in a hospital. It's a matter of opinion whether or not that is "fair." Now one of the nice things about military retirement vs. this deal. Let's say you marry a third time and die shortly afterwards. In this scenario, your third husband would now be $500K richer. In the military scenario, those retirement payments revert back to the orignial servicemember from which they came.

This is what marriage is. This is why I advise people to marry wisely...as I posted in the advice thread. This is also why I say people arguing about cases like the one you presented, have more of an argument with the entire divorce situation in the country, not really with USFSPA which mandates none of this.

But yes, if I had been married and divorce twice and were losing a lot more retirement than I'd be getting...one might considering taking a personal loss to avoid seeing that large check go out to people you hate.


"After my 4th divorce, I've decided I'm going to save myself from future heartache and get right to the end result. Instead of getting married, I will go out every 5 years, find a woman I hate and buy her a house." ~ Johnny Carson (paraphrased, I don't have the exact quote)

I see what you are saying. On that same note, if a military couple saves wisely and has a nice chunk in the bank and then divorces the spouse could end up with half. Then half of his retirement for the rest of her life. I am glad it isn't automatic because I don't think all spouses are entitled to half. I saw one wife who got her family kicked out of base housing for drug violations, she was banned from driving on base, banned from the BX, and when they got divorced she still ended up with half his retirement. SAD.

Measure Man
08-08-2013, 09:17 PM
Divorce was final at more than 10 years.

So, it can be done.

Another thing that can be negotiated. In my case, we were actually married 12 years. But, we'd spent the last 2 separated. My divorce decree specifies only10 years of marriage will be used for the division formula.

Measure Man
08-08-2013, 09:20 PM
So technically the Service member who EARNED that retirement could be (if he was married and divorced twice or more) receiving NOTHING as it is all being paid out to his/her exes? Dat's screwed up.

I suppose it's possible. Although, assuming no alimony and child support, he would still be paid at least half the retirement directly and would be expected to pay from that. At that point, he could go on the USN plan of running away to live in Thailand. If both marriages were <10 years, he could bolt with 100% of it.

Measure Man
08-08-2013, 09:23 PM
I see what you are saying. On that same note, if a military couple saves wisely and has a nice chunk in the bank and then divorces the spouse could end up with half. Then half of his retirement for the rest of her life.

Yes, of course. And half the house, half the cars, etc. Everything earned during the marriage is marital property. If you don't want to share with another person, do not get married.


I am glad it isn't automatic because I don't think all spouses are entitled to half. I saw one wife who got her family kicked out of base housing for drug violations, she was banned from driving on base, banned from the BX, and when they got divorced she still ended up with half his retirement. SAD.

I'm not surprised in the least.

Marry wisely.

USN - Retired
08-08-2013, 09:32 PM
Bottom line, without DFAS payment it isn’t a simple exercise therefore there is no need to escape the country. All distractions..

You are correct. It is not a simple exercise. Getting the retired military guy back into the family court to explain why he didn't cough up the money is not an easy or cheap process for the former military spouse. Subpoena, arrest warrant, arrest, extradition...

But if the ex-military wife can do it, then the retired military guy is toast.

Calmo70
08-08-2013, 09:36 PM
I didn't go through all 25 pages of posts - so this might already been in here somewhere. Anyway, it was in the Air Force Times as a news article back in the late 80's - right after the split in retirement pay became legal. Seems there was a 30 year Master Chief in the Navy that was out on his last cruise when his wife of many years found a new boyfriend and sent him notice while he was still at sea that she would be divorcing him when he got back and would also go for half of his retirement. Anyway, Master Chief is super pissed and elects to separate rather than apply for retirement just so she wouldn't get half of the retirement. Seems he was shooting himself in the foot in that half of retirement is better than no retirement. But, apparently that is what he did - separate - rather than give the ex any of his retirement.

Measure Man
08-08-2013, 09:43 PM
I didn't go through all 25 pages of posts - so this might already been in here somewhere. Anyway, it was in the Air Force Times as a news article back in the late 80's - right after the split in retirement pay became legal. Seems there was a 30 year Master Chief in the Navy that was out on his last cruise when his wife of many years found a new boyfriend and sent him notice while he was still at sea that she would be divorcing him when he got back and would also go for half of his retirement. Anyway, Master Chief is super pissed and elects to separate rather than apply for retirement just so she wouldn't get half of the retirement. Seems he was shooting himself in the foot in that half of retirement is better than no retirement. But, apparently that is what he did - separate - rather than give the ex any of his retirement.

At my first base, I personally knew and worked with a TSgt that separated at 16+ yrs for this same reason.

I also knew a 19 year SMSgt who elected to take the VSIP deal back in the 90s, as it did not appear that his payment for that would be divisible (he was already divorced...she had been awarded retirement, but VSIP was not retirement). I believe she was going to make a play for half the money, and I'm not sure how it worked out in the end. He was gambling that he'd be able to keep it, or make it hell on her to collect.

USN - Retired
08-08-2013, 10:11 PM
So, I am assuming you would prefer federal law to tell states what they can or can not do with military retirement, or the things they must follow before doing so. .

There should definitely be some limits. Some direction and guidance would be good so that the pay is divided in a consistent manner in a divorce. Allowing a state court to give a former military spouse a lifetime cut of the military retirement pay after a marriage of less than ten years is ridiculous.

I would be VERY happy if USFSPA would be modified to include a table of "equivalent value" based on a member's years and rank at the time of divorce to enable a lump sum payment (mainly for marriages less than 20 years). I know that you have supported that idea in previous posts, but it is a good idea and it is worth repeating. The involuntary separation pay tables for military service members who are involuntarily separated from active duty would be a good place to start for a USFSPA table of "equivalent value" (see post #105 for more details). The USFSPA modification could also include a statement that, for marriages that do not meet the USFSPA 20/20/20 rule, the family court judge should follow the USFSPA table of "equivalent value" except in extreme cases.


I believe this is the federal government too far into state government's business.

Jefferson Davis and George Wallace would definitely agree with you on that point.

Here's my thought on States' rights: States' rights doesn't mean that we should sit by and do nothing when the states are acting in an egregious manner.

Here are some questions for discussion:

Why does USFSPA contain the 10/10 rule? Did the federal government (congress) believe that military retirement pay should NOT be divided when the 10/10 rule was not met? Did the federal government (congress) decide that it would not prohibit a state from dividing a military retirement pay for a marriage of less than ten years, but it also would not facilitate the division of that retirement pay? Was the intent of the USFSPA 10/10 rule to discourage the division of military retirement pay for short term marriages? Was the USFSPA 10/10 rule an attempt by congress to mirror Social Security's 10 year rule regarding social security payments to divorced spouses.

What would happen if the USFSPA 10/10 rule were eliminated? Currently, the pay checks of over 100,000 retired military personnel are being divided by USFSPA enabled divorce court decrees. Only those marriages that meet the USFSPA 10/10 rule (10 years of marriage as the spouse of an active duty person) are being divided by DFAS. More than 100,000 is a lot of divorced couples and a lot of paperwork for DFAS. DFAS personnel have to review the divorce court documents for each of those former couples, over 100,000 divorces, and also set up an account for each of the former spouses. New divorce packets are flowing into DFAS daily and have to be reviewed and entered into the system. Former spouses have to be dropped out of the system when they die. DFAS needs many personnel to process all that paperwork. If the USFSPA 10/10 rule were eliminated, how many divorce packets will DFAS have to process? 200,000? 300,000? How many extra personnel will DFAS need to process that extra paperwork?

Currently, it is possible that many former military spouses don't even bother to ask for a part of the military retirement pay if the marriage was less than 10 years. The former military spouse might just ask for a larger share of the joint bank accounts instead. If the USFSPA 10/10 rule were eliminated, would a larger number of military spouses in short term marriages (i.e. less than 10 years) ask for a share of the military retirement pay knowing that they would be able to get it direct from DFAS? If they do, then can DFAS handle all that paperwork?