Did Final Judgment Violate The Former Spouse’s Protection Act?
While pensions and retirement plans are considered part of the marital estate and subject to equitable distribution, military disability benefits are not. This threw a wrench into one case involving a former husband and former wife.
In the case of Karrer v. Karrer, the parties were married in March 1986 and the wife petitioned for the dissolution of marriage in July, 1995. The wife was a 27-year-old registered nurse and the husband was a 40-year-old career Navy man. In January 1998, he would attain 20 years of active-duty military service which would qualify him for a retirement pension.
he trial court determined that the primary marital asset subject to equitable distribution was the husband’s retirement fund. The court awarded the former wife 50% of the fraction of each payment created by dividing the number of months in the marriage by the number of months in the former husband’s military service. The former husband claimed that he was disabled but the trial court ruled that his disabilities did not affect his quality of life or his earning capacity in any way. Therefore, the court ordered that in the event that the former husband voluntarily converts all or any part of his retirement pension to a disability pension, the former wife would be entitled to lump sum alimony in an amount equal to what she would have received if it had not been converted.
The former husband’s sole argument on appeal was that the court’s ruling concerning his pension violated The Former Spouses’ Protection Act (10 U.S.C. § 1408) because under the Act, and the case law interpreting it, a disability pension is not a marital asset for the purposes of equitable distribution while a military pension is.
The trial court agreed with the former husband. It vacated the section of the agreement that held that the husband would have to pay his wife lump sum alimony if he should convert his retirement plan to a disability benefits plan.
Attorney’s fees
In certain cases, one party to a divorce could be forced to pay the other’s attorney’s fees. In this case, the trial court determined that because the parties’ incomes were roughly equal, neither party should be required to pay the other’s attorney’s fees. However, the appeals court found in favor of the wife when it decided that because the former husband did not have financial obligations in the form of rent or utilities, income could be imputed to him which made the granting of attorney’s fees possible. The appeals court found that the former wife was entitled to attorney’s fees on that basis.
Talk to a Tampa, FL Divorce Lawyer Today
Westchase Law, P.A. represents the interests of Tampa residents who are pursuing a divorce. Call our Tampa family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin advising you on key matters such as equitable distribution of the marital estate, alimony, child custody, and child support.
Source:
casetext.com/case/karrer-v-karrer?q=dissolution%20of%20marriage%202023&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case&jxs=fl
