Saw an article on this and I know we have a lot of retired military members and attorneys who can cypher this and discuss the implications.

New Supreme Court Decision Has Serious Implications For Ex-Military Spouses

A U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down on May 15 may have serious implications for former spouses of veterans, despite providing clarity regarding disability pay from the Department of Veterans Affairs. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court sided in favor of a veteran who believed he did not owe his ex-wife 20% of that pay, and ruled that state courts cannot order veterans to pay divorced spouses for the loss of his or her retirement pay caused by service-related disability benefits.

The ruling on Howell v. Howell — a case in which former Airman John Howell hoped to prove he did not have to consider his disability pay as part of divisible assets in divorce — clarifies that disability pay is not divisible as community property.
_________________________

Analysis from SCOTUSBLOG:
Opinion analysis: Unanimous court rules for veteran in family law case

Today’s opinion in Howell v. Howell exemplifies the bread and butter of the Supreme Court’s docket: It is a decision with significant real-world consequences that will nonetheless largely fly under the radar. The court unanimously handed a victory to Air Force veteran John Howell, who was divorced from his former wife, Sandra, over 25 years ago. Although the divorce decree had ordered John to share half of his retirement pay with Sandra, John later opted to waive part of that retirement pay (on which he pays taxes) to instead receive disability benefits (which are not taxable), thereby reducing the money that Sandra received. The justices today ruled that John cannot be required to reimburse Sandra for the $125 per month that she no longer gets as a result of his choice.

The dispute before the court has its roots in John and Sandra Howell’s 1991 divorce. With John’s retirement only a year away, the couple’s divorce decree specified that Sandra would receive half of his military retirement pay. But in 2005, John gave up $250 of his $1,500 in retirement pay so that he could receive the same amount as disability benefits. Sandra went back to court, where she argued that, even if John’s retirement pay had been reduced, she should still receive half of what his retirement pay would have been without the disability benefits. The state courts agreed with her, but today the Supreme Court reversed, in a decision by Justice Stephen Breyer.

For the eight justices (Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court after the case was argued and did not participate), the ruling hinged on the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act, a 1982 federal law governing the disposition of military retirement pay in divorces, and a 1989 Supreme Court case interpreting that statute. The act makes clear that state courts can divide up “disposable retired pay,” which it defines as the service member’s retired pay, minus any portion of that pay waived in favor of disability benefits. And in Mansell v. Mansell, the court ruled that the act does not permit state courts to treat retirement pay that has been waived to receive veterans’ disability benefits as something that can be divided.

John had argued that the act and the court’s decision in Mansell easily resolved this case, while Sandra told the justices that this case is different because the veteran in Mansell had waived his right to military retirement pay before the divorce. The justices agreed with John, explaining that under federal law state courts simply lack the authority to divide up John’s disability benefits, even if it means that Sandra winds up receiving less money than she might have originally expected. And the state can’t get around the restrictions imposed by federal law by characterizing the award to Sandra as an order to John to “reimburse” her for the money that she no longer receives.

Breyer acknowledged that the federal statute and today’s ruling could make things harder for former military spouses like Sandra. But he suggested that, going forward, state courts can try to account for the possibility that a veteran could later waive some part of retirement pay in favor of disability benefits, or they can recalculate spousal support based on later changes in circumstances. In this case, however, the state courts did not do that. Instead, the Supreme Court noted, the state courts’ rulings “rested entirely upon the need to restore Sandra’s lost portion.”
_____________

Link to opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...pdf/15-1031_hejm.pdf

Looks to me like there should be some kind of sliding scale IE, married 10 years equals 50 percent times 1/2, married 5 years equals 25 percent times 1/2, and so on.

Better yet, marry a service member every two years or so and then divorce and latch onto another member for a few years. This could become a real game plan.

quote:

Originally posted by 41:
Better yet, marry a service member every two years or so and then divorce and latch onto another member for a few years. This could become a real game plan.

I have been told stories of women doing that. Never knew if they were true or not.

Dependapotamus

Read the definition and get back to me

quote:

Originally posted by 41:
Looks to me like there should be some kind of sliding scale IE, married 10 years equals 50 percent times 1/2, married 5 years equals 25 percent times 1/2, and so on.

Better yet, marry a service member every two years or so and then divorce and latch onto another member for a few years. This could become a real game plan.

With the military's transition to the blended retirement system, this won't really work any more. The years of 20 or nothing are dwindling.

Separately:
Bremelos
Silverwales
Port Orcas,
Grotopotomy

I don't see why an ex-spouse should rate compensation for a disability the veteran has.

Retirement? Sure.

Disability pay? No.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
I don't see why an ex-spouse should rate compensation for a disability the veteran has.

Retirement? Sure.

Disability pay? No.

Agreed!!

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
I don't see why an ex-spouse should rate compensation for a disability the veteran has.

Retirement? Sure.

Disability pay? No.

I might agree with you if the retirement amount wasn't reduced when you take the disability pay. I read the opinion. As I understand it, if you opt in to this disability pay, you agree to take a reduction in retirement benefits.

If the disability pay was independent of the the retirement, I would agree. But this seems to me to be reclassifying retirement pay as disability pay.

It is also troublesome that this can work retroactively. A spouse can get an award or make a deal for divorce based on one set of expectations. (I.e., I'll take more retirement, but less of something else in the divorce.) But this allows that rug to be jerked out from under the spouse, based on something that did not happen to that spouse, and an election over which that spouse has no control.

In fact, I think that points to what effect this will have. Spouses will conclude that military retirements are too risky, and seek to get other assets in the divorce. This may not have giant long-term impact, because people will learn how to avoid the problem.

I also think I have a problem with federal law trumping state decisions about marital property, which seems to do violence to the basic idea that the states retain most of the power. But I haven't thought this through, and I know that federal pre-emption (which is the basis of this decision) is very broad, so that may be a losing argument under the law as it exists.

Id rather have "Vaginamony" ended once and for all. You should leave a marriage with exactly what you brought into it. Dont like it, then dont get divorced/married and find your own source of income.

Ah, I forgot about a vet with <50% rating not being able to get full disability and retirement, so the only benefit they get is waiving retirement pay for disability since that isn't taxed.

That I can understand then, but for disabilty pay not in place of retirement, they can piss off.

quote:

Originally posted by medic451:
Id rather have "Vaginamony" ended once and for all. You should leave a marriage with exactly what you brought into it. Dont like it, then dont get divorced/married and find your own source of income.

What about couples who arrange their lives this way: You work, I'll stay home with kids. Cook, clean, take kids to doctor, and do most stuff not involving going to work. This is a mutual choice, and has mutual benefits. Twenty years later, the stay-at-home doesn't have great marketable skills, and the other spouse has a large income and potential. Stay-at-home also made a significant contribution in that hiring people to do all that stuff would have been expensive.

Under your rule, the stay-at-home is fucked, even after that couple made a conscious economic choice about how to arrange their lives.

Plus, if it is leave with what you brought, what will you do with all the stuff accumulated over 20 years? If the "earning" spouse gets it, shouldn't you make the spouse that was able to stay in the work force leave behind the 20 years of experience and earning power?

It is better to consider the couple a single economic unit. Your way leads to gross unfairness.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

That I can understand then, but for disabilty pay not in place of retirement, they can piss off.

That is the way we do it in Texas. We are a community property state. Retirement pay is pay, and pay earned during marriage (and not spent, obviously) is divisible.

Compensation for personal injury is NOT community property. That would not include any portion of a personal injury award that was meant to be a substitute for income that was lost during the marriage. But awards for pain, the loss of a limb itself, are personal property.

(Other states, and especially non-community property states, may do it differently. Don't assume what I say about Texas has anything to do with any other state.)

I've seen people that have been hurt by this law.

The USFSPA was passed back in 1982 when Congress heard a series of women claiming they contributed the there r husbands career. They felt they were owed part of the pension. Congess agreed to 50%. There was no requirements placed on the spouse. They could be unfaithful, abuse the kids, rob banks or commit treason. If they were married 10 years, they got 50%. Their income, even if more then the service member wasn't an issue.

Guy I worked with had been divorced for about 15 years. The ex showed up and demand her 50%. Here was an E-6 at the divorce and was now an E-9. Yes she was getting 50% of an CSM's pay.

Then there's Col Robert Strim. You likely have seen the picture of him and his family. Sims was a POW for over 5 years. The photo shows the happen reunion with his family. What wasn't shown is the wife being unfaithful, getting his pay and a government stipend for the time he was a POW. Neither does it show the series of boyfriends that traveled with her at Government expense.

The divoce cost Sims his home, custody of his kids, half his pension and no chance to collect any back pay. His wife was made to repay to the government the money spend on the boyfriend trips.

Keep in mind the pay isn't a pension. It's reduced pay for reduced services. Col Olliver North lost his pension when convicted by a court. He could no longer be recalled to active duty so his pension ended.

http://people.com/archive/a-po...bitterly-vol-1-no-5/
http://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewco...=1301&context=rwu_LR

Icabod hit on on my main issue with splitting the retirement, and that is that susceptibility to being called up for active duty in the armed forces should be a requirement for all parties receiving the money as opposed to just one.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by medic451:
Id rather have "Vaginamony" ended once and for all. You should leave a marriage with exactly what you brought into it. Don't like it, then don't get divorced/married and find your own source of income.

What about couples who arrange their lives this way: You work, I'll stay home with kids. Cook, clean, take kids to doctor, and do most stuff not involving going to work. This is a mutual choice, and has mutual benefits. Twenty years later, the stay-at-home doesn't have great marketable skills, and the other spouse has a large income and potential. Stay-at-home also made a significant contribution in that hiring people to do all that stuff would have been expensive.

Under your rule, the stay-at-home is fucked, even after that couple made a conscious economic choice about how to arrange their lives.

Plus, if it is leave with what you brought, what will you do with all the stuff accumulated over 20 years? If the "earning" spouse gets it, shouldn't you make the spouse that was able to stay in the work force leave behind the 20 years of experience and earning power?

It is better to consider the couple a single economic unit. Your way leads to gross unfairness.

Icabod hit most of your points rather well. There is no burden of proof that at any point during the marriage, a military spouse has chosen to do any of what your are referring to, especially when it comes to a dependapotamus. Often, you will see a lonely E-2 or E-3 get a little homesick for his girlfriend back home, go out on the town, meet "The One", and be married before the next pay cycle. A steady paycheck, a place to live, and pretty generous healthcare are great incentives for a woman to spread her legs for a little while and take a dicking. Outside of military installations the world over, women wait for PVT Joe Nobody to buy them drinks, take them back to a hotel and bang their brains out, and of course plant their love seed which makes it ever the more difficult to rid oneself of the skank.

Back to your cook, clean, take kids to a doctor stance....I have to call bullshit because most of the dependapotami would have found some other schlub outside of the military to have welfare babies with. They would rarely lower themselves to the point of getting an education or a job, that would be....work Magically, when they make the 10 year anniversary and he makes his retirement at 20 (assuming that those 10 years overlapped his service), she is entitled to half of his retirement pay with no further obligation to cook, clean, or other "duties". Sure, they were together and "maybe" happy for those 10 years but also, maybe not. She is still entitled to that money if she was: unfaithful, a slob that never cooked or cleaned a day in her life, or even a great wife who just got tired of the constant moving and deployments. However, he is not entitled to anything that she did before the relationship ended or after, but she is entitled to half even before he retires. So that to you is fair? If you are saying that 10 years of marriage (cooking, cleaning, and fucking) equals a revenue source that only ends at death, then man, what a deal!

I understand your point about a couple being a single economic unit; what I don't get is your position that once a couple ends their relationship, they are still a single economic unit. It would be my understanding that the woman is fully qualified to be what she had been for those previous 10+ years of marriage....a woman. Women today can get jobs that contribute to their own retirement. They can also earn a degree with relative ease using online colleges and dependent education benefits. Never mind the countless universities and colleges that offer classes on post or just off. So explain to me again how a woman that ultimately decides to stay at home will have no marketable skill?

Let's add up the potential income here:

Soldier Sam, age 18, rank E-2 marries Sally Spreads-Herlegs, also age 18. They were married for 11 deployment filled years, over which time Sam had deployed to 3 hostile fire "combat" zones for a total of 7 years averaging 8 months per deployment. Sally was lonely during Sams deployments so she found Studly Do Right to entertain herself. After his Nth deployment, Sally decided to serve divorce papers to Sam on account of his "inability to maintain a relationship" or some such bullshit. Divorce is done, all is good or so it seems, until Sam retired at 22 years of service and the rank of E-8. Now he finds that he owes Sally 50% of his hard earned money until her death. $2658.50 per month until she dies. That's $31,902 per year, for life, all for basically 4 years of sammiches, clean undies, and sloppy seconds! Let's say Sally gives up the ghost and dies at 68 years old. She would have gotten from Sam $893,256 assuming no increase in retired mil pay rates during that time. Not bad, especially considering Sally had gotten herself healthcare, food/housing, and an education while married to ol' Sam. She went on to become some kind of high level manager for a business making 2 times what he ever did while in the military. Should he be entitled to anything she earned because of the education she earned while she was married to him? Should he not still expect at least a meal or two a month, and maybe even a bj from her, since he is "paying" her for her wifely duties? Or is this a case of he gets screwed (not in the good way) because she's a "fragile" woman and lots of laws are written to protect them, even though they no longer need protecting?

IIRC a divorce settlement dealing with retired pay can be capped at the pay grade the SM held at the time of the divorce. Former spouses do not accrue additional monies as the former partner gets promoted.

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:
IIRC a divorce settlement dealing with retired pay can be capped at the pay grade the SM held at the time of the divorce. Former spouses do not accrue additional monies as the former partner gets promoted.

Hypothetical awards are rare birds when dealing with military divorces. Though it normally works out better for the service member, it has to be done with such skill that it cannot be debated in negotiations, therefore the more common formula award is used in most instances. I know quite a few guys who have lost the better part of their lives to this nonsense. There are several that have had to continue to work well past retirement just to keep a roof over their head and food in their belly. Such a shame that a former spouse has to do pretty much nothing to earn such a generous amount of money.

My ex wife got 40% of my retirement based off of the time we were married (21 years). The retirement I built after the divorce was all mine. I stayed in another 7 years and it's now 31% of my total retirement. She was an enabler to my career because I didn't have to worry about upbringing of my two children.

There is no law that says an ex military spouse gets xx% of retirement after xx years. That is determined in state court.

Mutedblade, my points about spouses being entitled to retirement benefits was much more broad than your response. I am talking about in marriages in general, not just military marriages.

As to specific points you make:

You fear predatory women. Do these women hold guns to these GI's heads? Or do the young servicemen allow their lust to run away with their senses? It is of course the latter. If you don't want to get married to what you so sensitively call Sally Spreads-Herlegs (revealing your views about women generally), don't marry her. If you don't want to be burdened with a child, don't get some girl pregnant. The man is equally responsible for all of that.

Do all of the women in your life behave like you think they do? Tricksters? Cheaters? Gold-diggers? You have a very poor view of women.

And should we treat the majority of spouses who behave honorably as you suggest because some are opportunists? Look at KPSquared's posts. I'd suggest his situation is more like most people's than your dismal view of marriage. Stay at home spouses don't do "pretty much nothing." You should try it sometime - it is a a lot of work AND you don't get any respect for it.

jhe, I can point out quite a few examples of how shit goes down in the military with spouses. I was lucky that I found a great woman while I was in the military. We have been married since 2000 and have a 16 year old daughter together. Even though I got lucky in meeting my soulmate, many others were only lucky enough to find a succubus. For your enjoyment and education, I will post a few videos. The experiences in the videos posted are not "one off" types. They show what many in the military have dealt with over the years and why there is a stereotype.
Vet Comes Home To Catch His Wife Cheating On Him
Wife CHEATED On Her Husband With 60 Guys
Military Wives Make Military Life Awful
When trailer trash dependa's attack!!!!
What is a Dependapotamus?

So, now that you have a peek into what happens almost daily, you can see that I am not being a sexist asshole. I am just posting what I have seen across 3 continents, 4 duty stations, and countless counseling sessions with soldiers. Sure, you have a valid point about not getting a girl knocked up, but you have to understand the mentality of some of these women. They are only in the relationship for one thing. BENEFITS! I have seen on more than one occasion where a woman told a soldier that she was pregnant so he would marry her.

I have seen the other end of the spectrum too. Soldiers who are fuck ups and should never have married (or be in the military for that matter) in the first place and end up putting their wives through hell. Now they are grade A assholes and they deserve everything that gets handed them, but getting half of a persons future for more or less being a spouse just doesn't sit well with me, especially since today women are freer to work and be educated. The victim mentality has got to be left behind if women are to truly be free and make their own way.