Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 257

Thread: Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA)

  1. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA)

    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.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Opt out
    Posts
    2,285
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Re: Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA)

    Quote Originally Posted by squidnut View Post
    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.

  3. #23
    Senior Member USN - Retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ewa Beach, Hawaii
    Posts
    702
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Re: Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA)

    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    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).

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Opt out
    Posts
    2,285
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Re: Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA)

    Quote Originally Posted by USN - Retired View Post
    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.

  5. #25
    Senior Member TJMAC77SP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,156
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)

    Re: Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA)

    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    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?
    ___________________
    Read carefully, think, then write thoughtfully……………………………..

    I don’t have any quotes……you can pick one for yourself

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Opt out
    Posts
    2,285
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Re: Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA)

    Quote Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP View Post
    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.

  7. #27
    Senior Member USN - Retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ewa Beach, Hawaii
    Posts
    702
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Re: Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA)

    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    I'm not saying it's fair....
    Thank you for not saying it's fair. :thumb

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Opt out
    Posts
    2,285
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Re: Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA)

    Quote Originally Posted by USN - Retired View Post
    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.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,329
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)

    Re: Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA)

    Quote Originally Posted by USN - Retired View Post
    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.

  10. #30
    Senior Member TJMAC77SP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,156
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)

    Re: Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA)

    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    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.
    ___________________
    Read carefully, think, then write thoughtfully……………………………..

    I don’t have any quotes……you can pick one for yourself

Similar Threads

  1. BAH Going Away?
    By Mjölnir in forum BAH
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 01-06-2017, 06:45 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •