Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Va. App. 726

446 S.E.2d 894

11 Va.LawRep. 89

Cook v. Cook

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Decided August 2, 1994

This page is marked noindex.

Court of Appeals of Virginia · decided 1994-08-02

Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1408

Relies on McCarty v. McCarty · Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo · Mansell v. Mansell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-08-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 2019

19 state decisions

80199420002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Benton, J.,

¶1concurring.

¶2I concur in Parts I and III of the majority opinion. Because I believe a caveat is necessary with respect to Part II, I concur in that part only with the following reservation.

¶3The final decree of divorce recited that the wife “is awarded Seventeen (17%) Percent of [the husband’s] United States Air Force Retirement Pay if and when it is received by [the husband] without any limit on the total dollar amount received.” The retirement pay that a court may equitably distribute is limited, however, by federal law to that portion of the total monthly retired pay that is “disposable retired or retainer pay.” 10 U.S.C. § 1408(a)(4).

[T]he Former Spouses’ Protection Act . . . authorizes state courts to treat “disposable retired or retainer pay” as community property [or property subject to equitable distribution]. 10 U.S.C. § 1408(c)(1). “‘Disposable retired or retainer pay’ ” is defined as “the total monthly retired or retainer pay to which a military member is entitled,” minus certain deductions. § 1408(a)(4) (1982 ed. and Supp. V).

¶4Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 584-85 (1989) (footnote omitted). Thus, the final decree of divorce may not be read to subject the husband’s total retirement pay to the award of seventeen percent to the wife.

¶5“[U]nder the Act’s plain and precise language, state courts have been granted the authority to treat disposable retired pay as . . . property [subject to equitable distribution]; they have not been granted the authority to treat total retired pay as . . . property [subject to equitable distribution].” Id. at 581. In creating benefits to counteract the decision in McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 (1981), Congress also “place[d] limits on state courts *733designed to protect military retirees.” Mansell, 490 U.S. at 594. That limit may not be exceeded by an order of a state court. Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 590 (1979). Accordingly, because the final decree cannot confer a benefit that exceeds the authority granted by Congress in 10 U.S.C. § 1408(a)(4), I concur in Part II only to the extent that the term “Retirement Pay” in the final decree is read to mean “disposable retired . . . pay.” Id.

/18/vaapp/726 · .json · Public domain