651 SO2D 1339 - Warner v. Warner

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2016

5 state decisions

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.

¶1 *1340 PER CURIAM:

¶2Writ granted. Trial court and court of appeal judgments reversed.

¶3The issue is whether a spouse married less than ten years is entitled to an interest in the other spouse's military pension. The federal statute, 10 U.S.C. § 1408(d)(2) provides:

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.

¶4The ten-year requirement in 10 U.S.C. § 1408(d)(2) only applies to military retirement pay paid directly by the Secretary to the former spouse. See Oxelgren v. Oxelgren,670 S.W.2d 411 (Tex.App.1984); Matter of Marriage of Wood,66 Or.App. 941, 676 P.2d 338 (1984); Konzen v. Konzen,103 Wash.2d 470, 693 P.2d 97 (1985), cert. denied 473 U.S. 906, 105 S.Ct. 3530, 87 L.Ed.2d 654 (1985); In re Marriage of Beltran,227 Cal. Rptr. 924, 183 Cal.App.3d 292 (1986); Parker v. Parker,750 P.2d 1313 (Wyo.1988); Scott v. Scott,519 So.2d 351 (La.App.2d Cir.1988); Carranza v. Carranza,765 S.W.2d 32 (Ky. App.1989); Warren v. Warren,563 N.E.2d 633 (Ind.App.1990); DeLoach v. DeLoach,590 So.2d 956 (Fla.App.1991); King v. King,78 Ohio App.3d 599, 605 N.E.2d 970 (1992); Cook v. Cook,18 Va.App. 726, 446 S.E.2d 894 (1994).

¶5The divorced wife, Mary Price Warner, is recognized as a proportionate owner of her former husband's future retirement pay. She is entitled to a percentage of one-half of his retirement pay. The percentage is to be calculated by the number of military marriage years relative to the total length of military service. See Bullock v. Bullock,354 N.W.2d 904 (N.D.1984).

¶6For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the trial court and the court of appeal 646 So.2d 1262, are reversed and judgment is rendered recognizing Mary Price Warner as a proportionate owner of one-half of her husband's military retirement plan. Her percentage interest in one-half of his pension is the number of military marriage years relative to the total length of military service.

¶7REVERSED AND RENDERED.

¶8DENNIS, J., not on panel.