12/10/12

USFSPA LIBERATION SUPPORT GROUP :: ULSG McCarty v. McCarty

Monday,10December2012

Home

ContactUs

search...

TheClearIssue FrequentlyAskedQuestions MembershipApplication Contribute Information... Legal...

McCartyv.McCarty Adkinsv.Rumsfeld Mansellv.Mansell JudicialTyranny

McCartyv.McCarty
U.S.SupremeCourt
McCARTYv.McCARTY,453U.S.210(1981)
453U.S.210 McCARTYv.McCARTY. APPEALFROMTHECOURTOFAPPEALOFCALIFORNIA,FIRSTAPPELLATEDISTRICT. No.805. ArguedMarch2,1981. DecidedJune26,1981. AregularcommissionedofficeroftheUnitedStatesArmywhoretiresafter20yearsofserviceis entitledtoretiredpay.Retiredpayterminateswiththeofficer'sdeath,althoughhemaydesignate abeneficiarytoreceiveanyarrearagesthatremainunpaidatdeath.Inadditiontherearestatutory plansthatallowtheofficertosetasideaportionofhisretiredpayforhissurvivors.Appellant,a RegularArmyColonel,filedapetitioninCaliforniaSuperiorCourtfordissolutionofhismarriageto appellee.Atthetime,hehadservedapproximately18ofthe20yearsrequiredforretirementwith pay.UnderCalifornialaw,eachspouse,upondissolutionofamarriage,hasanequalandabsolute righttoahalfinterestinallcommunityandquasicommunityproperty,butretainshisorher separateproperty.Inhispetition,appellantrequested,interalia,thathismilitaryretirement benefitsbeconfirmedtohimashisseparateproperty.TheSuperiorCourtheld,however,that suchbenefitsweresubjecttodivisionasquasicommunityproperty,andaccordinglyordered appellanttopaytoappelleeaspecifiedportionofthebenefitsuponretirement.Subsequently, appellantretiredandbeganreceivingretiredpayunderthedissolutiondecree,appelleewas entitledtoapproximately45%oftheretiredpay.Onreviewofthisaward,theCaliforniaCourtof Appealaffirmed,rejectingappellant'scontentionthatbecausethefederalschemeofmilitary retirementbenefitspreemptsstatecommunitypropertylaw,theSupremacyClauseprecludedthe trialcourtfromawardingappelleeaportionofhisretiredpay.

U.S.Congress... Media...

OtherMediaContacts>>

Write/callthemaboutthis ludicrouslawthatunfairlysingles outourarmedforces!

FindElectedOfficials
EnterZIPCode:

orSearchbyState

SeeIssues&Action
SelectAnIssueArea: Select Issue Area

Held:
ContactTheMedia
EnterZIPCode:

Federallawprecludesastatecourtfromdividingmilitaryretiredpaypursuanttostatecommunity propertylaws.Pp.220236. (a)Thereisaconflictbetweenthetermsofthefederalmilitaryretirementstatutesand thecommunitypropertyrightassertedbyappellee.Themilitaryretirementsystemconfers noentitlementtoretiredpayupontheretiredmember'sspouse,anddoesnotembody evenalimited"communitypropertyconcept."Rather,thelanguage,structure,andhistory ofthestatutesmakeitclearthatretiredpaycontinuestobethepersonalentitlementof theretiree.Pp.221232.

orSearchbyState

(b)Moreover,theapplicationofcommunitypropertyprinciplestomilitary retiredpaythreatensgraveharmto"clearandsubstantial"[453U.S.210,211] federalinterests.Thus,thecommunitypropertydivisionofretiredpay,by reducingtheamountsthatCongresshasdeterminedarenecessaryforthe retiredmember,hasthepotentialtofrustratethecongressionalobjectiveof providingfortheretiredservicemember.Inaddition,suchadivisionhasthe potentialtointerferewiththecongressionalgoalsofhavingthemilitary retirementsystemserveasaninducementforenlistmentandreenlistment andasanencouragementtoorderlypromotionandayouthfulmilitary.Pp. 232235. www.ulsg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=41

1/8

12/10/12

USFSPA LIBERATION SUPPORT GROUP :: ULSG McCarty v. McCarty

232235. Reversedandremanded. BLACKMUN,J.,deliveredtheopinionoftheCourt,inwhichBURGER,C.J.,andWHITE, MARSHALL,POWELL,andSTEVENS,JJ.,JJ.,joined,post,p.236.joined.REHNQUIST,J.,fileda dissentingopinion,inwhichBRENNANandSTEWART, MattaniahEytanarguedthecauseandfiledbriefsforappellant. WalterT.Winterarguedthecauseforappellee.WithhimonthebriefwasBarbaraR.Dornan.* [Footnote*]HerbertN.HarmonfiledabrieffortheNonCommissionedOfficersAssociationof theUnitedStatesofAmericaetal.asamicicuriaeurgingreversal. BriefsofamicicuriaeurgingaffirmancewerefiledbyWilliamH.AllenforJohnL.Burtonetal. andbyGertrudeD.Chern,JudithI.Avner,GillDeford,andNealDudovitzfortheNational OrganizationforWomenLegalDefenseandEducationFundetal. JUSTICEBLACKMUNdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt. AregularorreservecommissionedofficeroftheUnitedStatesArmywhoretiresafter20yearsof serviceisentitledtoretiredpay.10U.S.C.3911and3929.Thequestionpresentedbythiscaseis whether,uponthedissolutionofamarriage,federallawprecludesastatecourtfromdividing militarynondisabilityretiredpaypursuanttostatecommunitypropertylaws.

I
AlthoughdisabilitypensionshavebeenprovidedtomilitaryveteransfromtheRevolutionaryWar periodtothe[453U.S.210,212]present,1itwasnotuntiltheWarBetweentheStatesthat Congressenactedthefirstcomprehensivenondisabilitymilitaryretirementlegislation.See PreliminaryReviewofMilitaryRetirementSystems:HearingsbeforetheMilitaryCompensation SubcommitteeoftheHouseCommitteeonArmedServices,95thCong.,1standSess.,5(1977 1978)(MilitaryRetirementHearings)(statementofCol.LeonS.Hirsh,Jr.,USAF,Directorof Compensation,OfficeoftheAssistantSecretaryofDefenseforManpower,ReserveAffairs,and Logistics)SubcommitteeonRetirementIncomeandEmployment,HouseSelectCommitteeon Aging,WomenandRetirementIncomePrograms:CurrentIssuesofEquityandAdequacy,96th Cong.,1stSess.,15(Comm.Print1979)(WomenandRetirement).Sections15and21oftheAct ofAug.3,1861,12Stat.289,290,providedthatanyArmy,Navy,orMarineCorpsofficerwith40 yearsofservicecouldapplytothePresidenttoberetiredwithpayinaddition,16and22ofthat Actauthorizedtheinvoluntaryretirementwithpayofanyofficer"incapableofperformingthe dutiesofhisoffice."12Stat.289,290. Theimpetusforthislegislationwastheneedtoencourageorforcetheretirementofofficerswho werenotfitforwartimeduty.2WomenandRetirement,at15.Thus,from[453U.S.210,213] itsinception,3themilitarynondisabilityretirementsystemhasbeen"asmuchapersonnel managementtoolasanincomemaintenancemethod,"id.,at16thesystemwasandisdesigned notonlytoprovideforretiredofficers,butalsotoensurea"youngandvigorous"militaryforce,to createanorderlypatternofpromotion,andtoserveasarecruitingandreenlistmentinducement. MilitaryRetirementHearings,at46,13(statementofCol.Hirsh). Undercurrentlaw,therearethreebasicformsofmilitaryretirement:nondisabilityretirement disabilityretirementandreserveretirement.Seeid.,at4.Forourpresentpurposes,onlythefirst ofthesethreeformsisrelevant.4Sinceeachofthemilitaryserviceshassubstantiallythesame nondisabilityretirementsystem,seeid.,at5,theArmy'ssystemmaybetakenastypical.5An Armyofficerwhohas20yearsofservice,atleast10ofwhichhavebeenactiveserviceasa commissionedofficer,mayrequestthattheSecretaryofthe[453U.S.210,214]Armyretirehim. 10U.S.C.3911.6Anofficerwhorequestssuchretirementisentitledto"retiredpay."Thisis calculatedonthebasisofthenumberofyearsservedandrankachieved.3929and3991.7An officerwhoservesforlessthan20yearsisnotentitledtoretiredpay. Thenondisabilityretirementsystemisnoncontributoryinthatneithertheservicemembernorthe FederalGovernmentmakesperiodiccontributionstoanyfundduringtheperiodofactiveservice instead,retiredpayisfundedbyannualappropriations.MilitaryRetirementHearings,at5.In contrast,since1957,militarypersonnelhavebeenrequiredtocontributetotheSocialSecurity System.Pub.L.84881,70Stat.870.See42U.S.C.410(l)and(m).Uponsatisfyingthenecessary agerequirements,theArmyretiree,the[453U.S.210,215]spouse.anexspousewhowas marriedtotheretireeforatleast10years,andanydependentchildrenareentitledtoSocial Securitybenefits.See42U.S.C.402(a)to(f)(1976ed.andSupp.IV). Militaryretiredpayterminateswiththeretiredservicemember'sdeath,anddoesnotpasstothe member'sheirs.Themember,however,maydesignateabeneficiarytoreceiveanyarrearages
www.ulsg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=41 2/8

12/10/12

USFSPA LIBERATION SUPPORT GROUP :: ULSG McCarty v. McCarty

thatremainunpaidatdeath.10U.S.C.2771.Inaddition,therearestatutoryschemesthatallowa servicemembertosetasideaportionofthemember'sretiredpayforhisorhersurvivors.The firstsuchscheme,nowknownastheRetiredServiceman'sFamilyProtectionPlan(RSFPP),was establishedin1953.ActofAug.8,1953,67Stat.501,currentversionat10U.S.C.14311446 (1976ed.andSupp.IV).UndertheRSFPP,themilitarymembercouldelecttoreducehisorher retiredpayinordertoprovide,atdeath,anannuityforasurvivingspouseorchild.Participationin theRSFPPwasvoluntary,andtheparticipatingmember,priortoreceivingretiredpay,could revoketheelectioninorder"toreflectachangeinthemaritalordependencystatusofthe memberorhisfamilythatiscausedbydeath,divorce,annulment,remarriage,oracquisitionofa child...."1431(c).Further,deductionsfromretiredpayautomaticallyceaseuponthedeathor divorceoftheservicemember'sspouse.1434(c). BecausetheRSFPPwasselffinancing,itrequiredthedeductionofasubstantialportionofthe servicemember'sretiredpayconsequently,onlyabout15%ofeligiblemilitaryretirees participatedintheplan.SeeH.R.Rep.No.92481.pp.45(1971)S.Rep.No.921089.p.11 (1972).Inordertoremedythissituation.CongressenactedtheSurvivorBenefitPlan(SBP)in 1972.Pub.L.92425.86Stat.706,codified,asamended,at10U.S.C.14471455(1976ed.and Supp.IV).Participationinthisplanisautomaticunlesstheservicememberchoosestooptout. 1448(a).[453U.S.210,216]TheSBPisnotentirelyselffinancinginstead,theGovernment contributestotheplan,therebyrenderingparticipationintheSBPlessexpensivefortheservice memberthanparticipationintheRSFPP.ParticipantsintheRSFPPweregiventheoptionof continuingunderthatplanorofenrollingintheSBP.Pub.L.92425,3,86Stat.711,asamended byPub.L.93155,804,87Stat.615.

II
AppellantRichardJohnMcCartyandappelleePatriciaAnnMcCartyweremarriedinPortland,Ore., onMarch23,1957,whileappellantwasinhissecondyearinmedicalschoolattheUniversityof Oregon.Duringhisfourthyearinmedicalschool,appellantcommencedactivedutyintheUnited StatesArmy.Upongraduation,hewasassignedtosuccessivetoursofdutyinPennsylvania, Hawaii,Washington,D.C.,California,andTexas.AftercompletinghisdutyinTexas,appellantwas assignedtoLettermanHospitalonthePresidioMilitaryReservationinSanFrancisco,wherehe becameChiefofCardiology.Atthetimethissuitwasinstitutedin1976,appellantheldtherankof Colonelandhadservedapproximately18ofthe20yearsrequiredunder10U.S.C.3911for retirementwithpay. AppellantandappelleeseparatedonOctober31,1976.OnDecember1ofthatyear,appellant filedapetitionintheSuperiorCourtofCaliforniainandfortheCityandCountryofSanFrancisco requestingdissolutionofthemarriage.UnderCaliforniaCal.Civ.CodeAnn.4800(a)(WestSupp. 1981).LikesevenotherStates,Californiatreatsallpropertyearnedbyeitherspouseduringthe marriageascommunitypropertyeachspouseisdeemedtomakeanequalcontributiontothe maritalenterprise,andthereforeeachisentitledtoshareequallyinitsassets.See[453U.S.210, 217]Hisquierdov.Hisquierdo,439U.S.572,577578(1979)."Quasicommunityproperty"is definedaslaw,acourtgrantingdissolutionofamarriagemustdivide"thecommunitypropertyand thequasicommunitypropertyoftheparties." "allrealorpersonalproperty,whereversituatedheretoforeorhereafteracquired...[b]y eitherspousewhiledomiciledelsewherewhichwouldhavebeencommunitypropertyif thespousewhoacquiredthepropertyhadbeendomiciledin[California]atthetimeofits acquisition."Cal.Civ.CodeAnn.4803(WestSupp.1981). Upondissolutionofamarriage,eachspousehasanequalandabsoluterighttoahalfinterestin allcommunityandquasicommunitypropertyincontrast,eachspouseretainshisorherseparate property,whichincludesassetsthespouseownedbeforemarriageoracquiredseparatelyduring marriagethroughgift.SeeHisquierdo,439U.S.,at578. Inhisdissolutionpetition,appellantrequestedthatalllistedassets,including"[a]llmilitary retirementbenefits,"beconfirmedtohimashisseparateproperty.App.2.Inherresponse, appelleealsorequesteddissolutionofthemarriage,butcontendedthatappellanthadnoseparate propertyandthatthereforehismilitaryretirementbenefitswere"subjecttodispositionbythe courtinthisproceeding."8Id.,at89.OnNovember23,1977,theSuperiorCourtenteredfindings offactandconclusionsoflawholdingthatappellantwasentitledtoaninterlocutoryjudgment dissolving[453U.S.210,218]themarriage.Id.,at39,44.Appellantwasawardedcustodyofthe couple'sthreeminorchildrenappelleewasawardedspousalsupport.Thecourtfoundthatthe communitypropertyofthepartiesconsistedoftwoautomobiles.cash,thecashvalueoflife insurancepolicies,andanuncollecteddebt.Id.,at42.Itallocatedthispropertybetweenthe parties.Id.,at45.Inaddition,thecourtheldthatappellant's"militarypensionandretirement rights"weresubjecttodivisionasquasicommunityproperty.Ibid.Accordingly,thecourtordered appellanttopaytoappellee,solongasshelives, "thatportionofhistotalmonthlypensionorretirementpaymentwhichequalsonehalf (1/2)oftheratioofthetotaltimebetweenmarriageandseparationduringwhich www.ulsg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=41
3/8

12/10/12

USFSPA LIBERATION SUPPORT GROUP :: ULSG McCarty v. McCarty

(1/2)oftheratioofthetotaltimebetweenmarriageandseparationduringwhich [appellant]wasintheUnitedStatesArmytothetotalnumberofyearshehasservedwith the...Armyatthetimeofretirement."Id.,at4344. Thecourtretainedjurisdiction"tomakesuchdeterminationatthattimeandtosupervise distribution...."Ibid.OnSeptember30,1978,appellantretiredfromtheArmyafter20yearsof activedutyandbeganreceivingretiredpayunderthedecreeofdissolution,appelleewasentitled toapproximately45%ofthatretiredpay. AppellantsoughtreviewoftheportionoftheSuperiorCourt'sdecreethatawardedappelleean interestintheretiredpay.TheCaliforniaCourtofAppeal,FirstAppellateDistrict,however, affirmedtheaward.App.toJuris.Statement32.Insoruling,thecourtdeclinedtoaccept appellant'scontentionthatbecausethefederalschemeofmilitaryretirementbenefitspreempts statecommunitypropertylaws,theSupremacyClause,U.S.Const.,Art.VI,cl.2,precludedthe trialcourtfromawardingappelleeaportionofhisretiredpay.9Thecourtnotedthatthisprecise contentionhad[453U.S.210,219]beenrejectedinInreFithian,10Cal.3d592,517P.2d449, cert.denied,419U.S.825(1974).10Furthermore,thecourtconcludedthattheresultinFithian hadnotbeencalledintoquestionbythisCourt'ssubsequentdecisioninHisquierdov.Hisquierdo, supra,whereitwasheldthatbenefitspayableunderthefederalRailroadRetirementActof1974 couldnotbedividedunderstatecommunitypropertylaw.SeealsoGormanv.Gorman,90Cal. App.3d454,153Cal.Rptr.479(1979).11 TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtdeniedappellant'spetitionforhearing.App.toJuris.Statement83. Wepostponedjurisdiction.449U.S.917(1980).Wehavenowconcludedthatthiscaseproperly fallswithinourappellatejurisdiction,12andwethereforeproceedtothemerits.[453U.S.210, 220]

III
ThisCourtrepeatedlyhasrecognizedthat"`[t]hewholesubjectofthedomesticrelationsof husbandandwife...belongstothelawsoftheStatesandnottothelawsoftheUnitedStates.'" Hisquierdo,439U.S.,at581,quotingInreBurrus,136U.S.586,593594(1890).Thus," [s]tatefamilyandfamilypropertylawmustdo`majordamage'to`clearandsubstantial'federal interestsbeforetheSupremacyClausewilldemandthatstatelawbeoverridden."Hisquierdo,439 U.S.,at581,withreferencestoUnitedStatesv.Yazell,382U.S.341,352(1966).Seealso Alessiv.RaybestosManhattan,Inc.,451U.S.504,522(1981).InHisquierdo,weconcludedthat California'sapplicationofcommunitypropertyprinciplestoRailroadRetirementActbenefits workedsuchaninjurytofederalinterests.The"criticalterms"ofthefederalstatuterelieduponin reachingthatconclusionincludedprovisionsestablishing"aspecifiedbeneficiaryprotectedbyaflat prohibitionagainstattachmentandanticipation,"see45U.S.C.231m,andalimitedcommunity propertyconceptthatterminatedupondivorce,see45U.S.C.231d.439U.S.,at582585. Appelleearguesthatnosuchprovisionsaretobefoundinthestatutepresentlyunder consideration,andthatthereforeHisquierdoisinapposite.ButHisquierdodidnotholdthatonlythe particularstatutorytermsthereconsideredwouldjustifyafinding[453U.S.210,221]ofpre emptionrather,itheldthat"[t]hepertinentquestionsarewhethertherightasassertedconflicts withtheexpresstermsoffederallawandwhetheritsconsequencessufficientlyinjurethe objectivesofthefederalprogramtorequirenonrecognition."Id.,at583.Itistothattwofold inquirythatwenowturn.

A
AppellantarguesthatCalifornia'sapplicationofcommunitypropertyconceptstomilitaryretired payconflictswithfederallawintwodistinctways.Hecontends,first,thattheCaliforniacourt's conclusionthatretiredpayis"awardedinreturnforservicespreviouslyrendered,"seeFithian,10 Cal.3d,at604,517P.2d,at457,ignoresclearfederallawtothecontrary.Thecommunity propertydivisionofmilitaryretiredpayrestsonthepremisethatthatpay,likeatypicalpension, representsdeferredcompensationforservicesperformedduringthemarriage.Id.,at596,517 P.2d,at451.But,appellantasserts,militaryretiredpayinfactiscurrentcompensationfor reduced,butcurrentlyrendered,servicesaccordingly,evenunderCalifornialaw,thatpaymaynot betreatedascommunitypropertytotheextentthatitisearnedafterthedissolutionofthemarital community,sincetheearningsofaspousewhileliving"separateandapart"areseparateproperty. Cal.Civ.CodeAnn.5118,5119(West1970andSupp.1981). Appellantcorrectlynotesthatmilitaryretiredpaydiffersinsomesignificantrespectsfromatypical pensionorretirementplan.TheretiredofficerremainsamemberoftheArmy,seeUnitedStates v.Tyler,105U.S.244(1882),13and[453U.S.continuestobesubjecttotheUniformCodeof MilitaryJustice,see10U.S.C.802(4).SeealsoHooperv.UnitedStates,164Ct.Cl.151,326F.2d 982,cert.denied,377U.S.977(1964).Inaddition,hemayforfeitallorpartofhisretiredpayif

www.ulsg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=41

4/8

12/10/12

USFSPA LIBERATION SUPPORT GROUP :: ULSG McCarty v. McCarty

982,cert.denied,377U.S.977(1964).Inaddition,hemayforfeitallorpartofhisretiredpayif heengagesincertainactivities.14Finally,theretiredofficerremainssubjecttorecalltoactive dutybytheSecretaryoftheArmy"atanytime."Pub.L.96513,106,94Stat.2868.Thesefactors haveledseveralcourts,includingthisone,toconcludethatmilitaryretiredpayisreduced compensationforreducedcurrentservices.InUnitedStatesv.Tyler,105U.S.,at245,theCourt statedthatretiredpayis"compensation...continuedatareducedrate,andtheconnectionis continued,witharetirementfromactiveserviceonly."15[453U.S.210,223]210,222] Havingsaidallthis,weneednotdecidetodaywhetherfederallawprohibitsaStatefrom characterizingretiredpayasdeferredcompensation,sinceweagreewithappellant'salternative argumentthattheapplicationofcommunitypropertylawconflictswiththefederalmilitary retirementschemeregardlessofwhetherretiredpayisdefinedascurrentorasdeferred compensation.16Thestatutorylanguageisstraightforward:[453U.S.210,224]"Amemberof theArmyretiredunderthischapterisentitledtoretiredpay...."10U.S.C.3929.InHisquierdo, 439U.S.,at584,weemphasizedthatundertheRailroadRetirementActaspouseofaretired railroadworkerwasentitledtoaseparateannuitythatterminatedupondivorce,see45U.S.C. 231d(c)(3)incontrast,themilitaryretirementsystemconfersnoentitlementtoretiredpayupon theretiredservicemember'sspouse.Thus,unliketheRailroadRetirementAct,themilitary retirementsystemdoesnotembodyevenalimited"communitypropertyconcept."Indeed, Congresshasexplicitlystated:"Historically,militaryretiredpayhasbeenapersonalentitlement payabletotheretiredmemberhimselfaslongashelives."S.Rep.No.1480,90thCong.,2d Sess.,6(1968)(emphasisadded). AppelleearguesthatCongress'useoftheterm"personalentitlement"inthiscontextsignifiesonly thatretiredpayceasesuponthedeathoftheservicemember.Butseveralfeaturesofthe statutoryschemesgoverningmilitarypaydemonstratethatCongressdidnotusetheterminso limitedafashion.First,theservicemembermaydesignateabeneficiarytoreceiveanyunpaid arrearagesinretiredpayuponhisdeath.10U.S.C.2771.17Theservicememberisfree[453 U.S.210,225]todesignatesomeoneotherthanhisspouseorexspouseasthebeneficiary further,thestatuteexpresslyprovidesthat"[a]paymentunderthissectionbarsrecoverybyany otherpersonoftheamountpaid."2771(d).InWissnerv.Wissner,338U.S.655(1950),this Courtconsideredananalogousstatutoryscheme.UndertheNationalServiceLifeInsuranceAct, aninsuredservicememberhadtherighttodesignatethebeneficiaryofhispolicy.Id.,at658. WissnerheldthatCaliforniacouldnotawardaservicemember'swidowhalftheproceedsofalife insurancepolicy,eventhoughthesourceofthepremiumsthemember'sArmypaywas characterizedascommunitypropertyunderCalifornialaw.TheCourtreservedthequestion whetherCaliforniais"entitledtocallarmypaycommunityproperty,"id.,at657,n.2,sinceitfound thatCongresshad"spokenwithforceandclarityindirectingthattheproceedsbelongtothe namedbeneficiaryandnoother."Id.,at658.Inthepresentcontext,Congresshasstatedwith "forceandclarity"thatabeneficiaryunder2771claimsaninterestintheretired[453U.S.210, 226]payitself,notsimplyinproceedsfromapolicypurchasedwiththatpay.Onecommentator hasnoted:"Ifretiredpaywerecommunityproperty,theretireecouldnotthussummarilydeprive hiswifeofherinterestinthearrearage."Goldberg,IsArmedServicesRetiredPayReally CommunityProperty?,48Cal.BarJ.12,17(1973). Second,thelanguage,structure,andlegislativehistoryoftheRSFPPandtheSBPalsodemonstrate thatretiredpayisa"personalentitlement."Whileretiredpayceasesuponthedeathoftheservice member,theRSFPPandtheSBPallowtheservicemembertoreducehisorherretiredpayin ordertoprovideanannuityforthesurvivingspouseorchildren.Underbothplans,however,the servicememberisfreetoelecttoprovidenoannuityatall,ortoprovideanannuitypayableonly tothesurvivingchildren,andnottothespouse.See10U.S.C.1434(1976ed.andSupp.IV) (RSFPP)1450(1976ed.andSupp.IV)(SBP).Hereagain,itisclearthatifretiredpaywere communityproperty,theservicemembercouldnotsodeprivethespouseofhisorherinterestin theproperty.18Butweneednotrelyonthisimplicitconflictalone,forboththelanguageofthe statutes19andtheirlegislativehistorymakeitclearthatthe[453U.S.210,227]decision whethertoleaveanannuityistheservicemember'sdecisionalonebecauseretiredpayishisor herpersonalentitlement.IthasbeenstatedinCongressthat"[t]herightsinretirementpayaccrue totheretireeand,ultimately,thedecisionishisastowhetherornottoleavepartofthat retirementpayasanannuitytohissurvivors."H.R.Rep.No.92481,p.9(1971).20California's communitypropertydivisionofretiredpayissimplyinconsistentwiththisexplicitexpressionof congressionalintentthatretiredpayaccruetotheretiree. Moreover,suchadivisionwouldhavetheanomalouseffectofplacinganexspouseinabetter positionthanthatofawidowerorawidowundertheRSFPPandtheSBP.21Appellee[453U.S. 210,228]arguesthat"Congress'concernforthewelfareofsoldiers'widowsshedslittlelighton Congress'attitudetowardthecommunitytreatmentofretirementbenefits,"quotingFithian,10 Cal.3d,at600,517P.2d,at454.ButthisargumentfailstorecognizethatCongressdeliberately haschosentofavorthewidowerorwidowovertheexspouse.Anexspouseisnotaneligible beneficiaryofanannuityundereitherplan.10U.S.C.1434(a)(RSFPP)1447(3)and1450(a) (SBP).Inaddition,undertheRSFPP,deductionsfromretiredpayforaspouse'sannuity automaticallyceaseupondivorce,1434(c),soas"[t]osafeguardtheparticipants'futureretired paywhen...divorceoccurs...."S.Rep.No.1480,90thCong.,2dSess.,13(1968).Whilethe SBPdoesnotexpresslyprovidethatannuitydeductionsceaseupondivorce,thelegislativehistory

www.ulsg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=41

5/8

12/10/12

USFSPA LIBERATION SUPPORT GROUP :: ULSG McCarty v. McCarty

SBPdoesnotexpresslyprovidethatannuitydeductionsceaseupondivorce,thelegislativehistory indicatesthatCongress'policyremainedunchanged.TheSBP,whichwasreferredtoasthe "widow'sequitybill,"118Cong.Rec.29811(1972)(statementofSen.Beall),wasenacted becauseofCongress'concernoverthenumberofwidowsleftwithoutsupportthroughlow participationintheRSFPP,notoutofconcernforexspouses.SeeH.R.Rep.No.92481,pp.45 (1971)S.Rep.No.921089,p.11(1972). Third,andfinally,itisclearthatCongressintendedthatmilitaryretiredpay"actuallyreachthe beneficiary."SeeHisquierdo,439U.S.,at584.Retiredpaycannotbeattachedtosatisfya propertysettlementincidenttothedissolutionofamarriage.22InenactingtheSBP,Congress rejected[453U.S.210,229]aprovisionintheHousebill,H.R.10670,thatwouldhaveallowed attachmentofupto50%ofmilitaryretiredpaytocomplywithacourtorderinfavorofaspouse, formerspouse,orchild.SeeH.R.Rep.No.92481,at1S.Rep.No.921089,at25.TheHouse ReportaccompanyingH.R.10670notedthatunderBuchananv.Alexander,4How.20(1845),and Applegatev.Applegate,39F.Supp.887(EDVa.1941),militarypaycouldnotbeattachedsolong asitwasintheGovernment'shands23thus,thisclauseofH.R.10670representeda"drastic departure"fromcurrentlaw,butonethattheHouseCommitteeonArmedServicesbelievedtobe necessitatedbythedifficultyofenforcingsupportorders.H.R.Rep.No.92481,at1718. AlthoughthisprovisionpassedtheHouse,itwasnotincludedintheSenateversionofthebill.See S.Rep.No.921089,at25.Thereafter,theHouseaccededtotheSenate'sviewthatthe attachmentprovisionwouldunfairly"singleoutmilitaryretireesforaformofenforcementofcourt ordersimposedonnootheremployeesorretiredemployeesoftheFederalGovernment."118 Cong.Rec.30151(1972)(remarksofRep.Pike)S.Rep.No.921089,[453U.S.210,230]at25. Instead,Congressdeterminedthattheproblemoftheattachmentofmilitaryretiredpayshouldbe consideredinthecontextof"legislationthatmightrequireallFederalpaystobesubjectto attachment."Ibid.118Cong.Rec.30151(1972)(remarksofRep.Pike). Subsequently,comprehensivelegislationwasenacted.In1975,CongressamendedtheSocial SecurityActtoprovidethatallfederalbenefits,includingthosepayabletomembersoftheArmed Services,maybesubjecttolegalprocesstoenforcechildsupportoralimonyobligations.Pub.L. 93647,101(a),88Stat.2357,42U.S.C.659.In1977,however,Congressaddedanew definitionalsection(462(c))providingthattheterm"alimony"in659(a)"doesnotincludeany paymentortransferofproperty...incompliancewithanycommunitypropertysettlement, equitabledistributionofproperty,orotherdivisionofpropertybetweenspousesorformer spouses."Pub.L.9530,501(d),91Stat.159,42U.S.C.662(c)(1976ed.,Supp.IV).Aswe notedinHisquierdo,itis"logicaltoconcludethatCongress,inadopting462(c),thoughtthata family'sneedforsupportcouldjustifygarnishment,eventhoughitdeflectedotherfederalbenefits fromtheirintendedgoals,butthatcommunitypropertyclaims,whicharenotbasedonneed,could notdoso."439U.S.,at587. HisquierdoalsopointedoutthatCongressmightconcludethatthisdistinctionbetweensupportand communitypropertyclaimsis"undesirable."Id.,at590.Indeed,Congressrecentlyenacted legislationthatrequiresthatCivilServiceretirementbenefitsbepaidtoanexspousetotheextent providedforin"thetermsofanycourtorderorcourtapprovedpropertysettlementagreement incidenttoanycourtdecreeofdivorce,annulment,orlegalseparation."Pub.L.95366,1(a),92 Stat.600,5U.S.C.8345(j)(1)(1976ed.,Supp.IV).Inanevenmoreextremerecentstep, CongressamendedtheForeignServiceretirementlegislationtoprovidethat,asamatterof federallaw,anexspouseisentitled[453U.S.210,231]toaproratashareofForeignService retirementbenefits.24Thus,theCivilServiceamendmentsrequiretheUnitedStatestorecognize thecommunitypropertydivisionofCivilServiceretirementbenefitsbyastatecourt,whilethe ForeignServiceamendmentsestablishalimitedfederalcommunitypropertyconcept.Significantly, however,whilesimilarlegislationaffectingmilitaryretiredpaywasintroducedinthe96th Congress,noneofthosebillswasreportedoutofcommittee.25Thus,instrikingcontrasttoits amendment[453U.S.210,232]oftheForeignServiceandCivilServiceretirementsystems, Congresshasneitherauthorizednorrequiredthecommunitypropertydivisionofmilitaryretired pay.Onthecontrary,thatpaycontinuestobethepersonalentitlementoftheretiree.

B
Weconclude,therefore,thatthereisaconflictbetweenthetermsofthefederalretirement statutesandthecommunitypropertyrightassertedbyappelleehere.But"[a]mereconflictin wordsisnotsufficient"thequestionremainswhetherthe"consequences[ofthatcommunity propertyright]sufficientlyinjuretheobjectivesofthefederalprogramtorequirenonrecognition." Hisquierdo,439U.S.,at581583.Thisinquiry,however,needbeonlyabriefone,foritis manifestthattheapplicationofcommunitypropertyprinciplestomilitaryretiredpaythreatens graveharmto"clearandsubstantial"federalinterests.SeeUnitedStatesv.Yazell,382U.S.,at 352.UndertheConstitution,Congresshasthepower"[t]oraiseandsupportArmies,""[t]o provideandmaintainaNavy,"and"[t]omakesRulesfortheGovernmentandRegulationofthe landandnavalForces."U.S.Const.,Art.I,8,cls.12,13,and14.SeegenerallyRostkerv. Goldberg,ante,at59.Pursuanttothisgrantofauthority,Congresshasenactedamilitary retirementsystemdesignedtoaccomplishtwomajorgoals:toprovidefortheretiredservice
www.ulsg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=41 6/8

12/10/12

USFSPA LIBERATION SUPPORT GROUP :: ULSG McCarty v. McCarty

member,andtomeetthepersonnelmanagement[453U.S.210,233]needsoftheactive militaryforces.Thecommunitypropertydivisionofretiredpayhasthepotentialtofrustrateeach oftheseobjectives. Inthefirstplace,thecommunitypropertyinterestappelleeseeks"promisestodiminishthat portionofthebenefitCongresshassaidshouldgototheretired[servicemember]alone."See Hisquierdo,439U.S.,at590.StatecourtsarenotfreetoreducetheamountsthatCongresshas determinedarenecessaryfortheretiredmember.Furthermore,thecommunitypropertydivision ofretiredpaymaydisruptthecarefullybalancedschemeCongresshasdevisedtoencouragea servicemembertosetasideaportionofhisorherretiredpayasanannuityforasurvivingspouse ordependentchildren.Bydiminishingtheamountavailabletotheretiree,acommunityproperty divisionmakesitlesslikelythattheretiredservicememberwillchoosetoreducehisorherretired paystillfurtherbypurchasinganannuityforthesurvivingspouse,ifany,orchildren.InMcCunev. Essig,199U.S.382(1905),theCourtheldthatfederallaw,whichpermittedawidowtopatent federallandenteredbyherhusband,prevailedovertheinterestinthepatentassertedbythe daughterunderstateinheritancelawtheCourtnotedthatthedaughter'scontention"reversesthe orderofthestatuteandgivesthechildrenaninterestParamounttothatofthewidowthroughthe lawsoftheState."Id.,at389.Sohere,therightappelleeasserts"reversestheorderofthe statute"bygivingtheexspouseaninterestparamounttothatofthesurvivingspouseandchildren oftheservicememberindeed,atleastonecourt(inanoncommunitypropertyState)hasgoneso farastoholdthattheheirsoftheexspousemayeveninheritherinterestinmilitaryretiredpay. SeeInreMiller,___Mont.___,609P.2d1185(1980),cert.pendingsubnom.Millerv.Miller,No. 80291.Clearly,"[t]helawoftheStateisnotcompetenttodothis."McCunev.Essig,199U.S.,at 389.[453U.S.210,234] Thepotentialfordisruptionofmilitarypersonnelmanagementisequallyclear.Ashasbeennoted above,themilitaryretirementsystemisdesignedtoserveasaninducementforenlistmentandre enlistment,tocreateanorderlycareerpath,andtoensure"youthfulandvigorous"militaryforces. 26Whileconcedingthatthereisasubstantialinterestinattractingandretainingpersonnelforthe militaryforces,appelleearguesthatthisinterestwillnotbeimpairedbyallowingaStatetoapply itscommunitypropertylawstoretiredmilitarypersonnelinthesamemannerthatitappliesthose lawstocivilians.Yetthisargumentignorestwoessentialcharacteristicsofmilitaryservice:the militaryforcesarenationalinoperationandtheirmembers,unlikecivilianemployees,cf. Hisquierdo,arenotfreetochoosetheirplaceofresidence.Appellant,forinstance,servedtoursof dutyinfourStatesandtheDistrictofColumbia.Thevalueofretiredpayasaninducementfor enlistmentorreenlistmentisobviouslydiminishedtotheextentthattheservicemember recognizesthatheorshemaybeinvoluntarilytransferredtoaStatethatwilldividethatpayupon divorce.InFreev.Bland,[453U.S.210,235]369U.S.663(1962),theCourtheldthatstate communitypropertylawcouldnotoverridethesurvivorshipprovisionofafederalsavingsbond, sinceitwas"[o]neoftheinducementsselected,"id.,at669,tomakepurchaseofsuchbonds attractivesimilarly,retiredpayisoneoftheinducementsselectedtomakemilitaryservice attractive,andtheapplicationofstatecommunitypropertylawthus"interfere[s]directlywitha legitimateexerciseofthepoweroftheFederalGovernment."Ibid. Theinterferencewiththegoalsofencouragingorderlypromotionandayouthfulmilitaryisnoless direct.Here,asintheRailroadRetirementActcontext,"Congresshasfixedanamountthought appropriatetosupportanemployee'soldageandtoencouragetheemployeetoretire."See Hisquierdo,439U.S.,at585.Butthereductionofretiredpaybyacommunitypropertyaward notonlydiscouragesretirementbyreducingtheretiredpayavailabletotheservicemember,but giveshimapositiveincentivetokeepworking,sincecurrentincomeafterdivorceisnotdivisibleas communityproperty.SeeCal.Civ.CodeAnn.5118,5119(West1970andSupp.1981).Congress hasdeterminedthatayouthfulmilitaryisessentialtothenationaldefenseitisnotforStatesto interferewiththatgoalbylesseningtheincentivetoretirecreatedbythemilitaryretirement system.

IV
Werecognizethattheplightofanexspouseofaretiredservicememberisoftenaseriousone. SeeHearingonH.R.2817,H.R.3677,andH.R.6270beforetheMilitaryCompensation SubcommitteeoftheHouseCommitteeonArmedServices,96thCong.,2dSess.(1980).That plightmaybemitigatedtosomeextentbytheexspouse'srighttoclaimSocialSecuritybenefits, cf.Hisquierdo,439U.S.,at590,andtogarnishmilitaryretiredpayforthepurposesofsupport. Nonetheless,Congressmaywelldecide,asithasintheCivilServiceandForeignServicecontexts, thatmoreprotection[453U.S.210,236]shouldbeaffordedaformerspouseofaretiredservice member.Thisdecision,however,isforCongressalone.Weveryrecentlyhavereemphasizedthat innoareahastheCourtaccordedCongressgreaterdeferencethanintheconductandcontrolof militaryaffairs.SeeRostkerv.Goldberg,ante,at6465.Thus,theconclusionthatwereachedin Hisquierdofollowsafortiorihere:Congresshasweighedthematter,and"[i]tisnottheprovince ofstatecourtstostrikeabalancedifferentfromtheoneCongresshasstruck."439U.S.,at590. ThejudgmentoftheCaliforniaCourtofAppealisreversed,andthecaseisremandedforfurther www.ulsg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=41
7/8

12/10/12

USFSPA LIBERATION SUPPORT GROUP :: ULSG McCarty v. McCarty

ThejudgmentoftheCaliforniaCourtofAppealisreversed,andthecaseisremandedforfurther proceedingsnotinconsistentwiththisopinion. Itissoordered. ViewFootnotes>>

LastUpdated(Thursday,15May2008)

Next > [ Back ]

ULSG,LLC

20770USHwy281North,Suite108,PMB125

SanAntonio,TX782587500

20032012ULSG,LLCAllRightsReserved|Siteby

FullFusion::Support

www.ulsg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=41

8/8