Case Title: Gentry v. Gentry

Citation: 

Docket Number: 96-1063

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-02-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
Horace D. GENTRY v. Athanett O. GENTRY

96-1063                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered February 10, 1997


1.   Constitutional law -- Supremacy Clause -- state action may be
     preempted by a conflicting federal law. -- It is generally
     agreed that, under the Supremacy Clause, any state action is
     preempted by a conflicting federal law. 

2.   Divorce -- courts without power to enforce private agreement
     dividing future payments of Social Security -- Social Security
     Act prohibits assignment of future receipt of benefits. --
     State courts are without power to take any action to enforce
     a private agreement dividing future payments of Social
     Security when such an agreement violates the statutory
     prohibition against transfer or assignment of future benefits;
     the Social Security statute itself specifically prohibits
     assignment of "future" receipt of benefits and not those
     benefits already received.  
    
3.   Divorce -- independent property-settlement agreement
     incorporated into divorce decree -- court may not subsequently
     modify agreement. -- Contracts entered into voluntarily must
     be enforced; when parties enter voluntarily into an
     independent property-settlement agreement that is incorporated
     into a decree of divorce, it cannot subsequently be modified
     by the court.

4.   Divorce -- parties may not contract to transfer their unpaid
     Social Security benefits -- agreement between parties
     unenforceable. -- The Social Security Act prohibits access of
     others to Social Security benefits except to provide child
     support or make alimony payments; community-property
     settlements, equitable distribution of property, or other
     division of property between spouses are specifically
     excluded; here, there was no award of alimony; the plain
     language of the agreement clearly provided for a transfer or
     assignment of future benefits prohibited by 42 U.S.C  407(a),
     and therefore paragraph nine was invalid and unenforceable
     when signed; because the parties attempted to transfer their
     rights to future benefits in violation of  407(a), the
     agreement was invalid; the fact that the property-settlement
     agreement was entered into voluntarily by the parties was not
     relevant.


     Appeal from Benton Chancery Court; Donald R. Huffman,
Chancellor; reversed and remanded.
     D. Scott Hickam. for appellant.
     Clark & Clark, by:  Jim Clark, for appellee.

     Ray Thornton, Justice.
     This case presents the issue whether an agreement to divide
future Social Security benefits can be enforced by the courts of
Arkansas notwithstanding the provisions of federal law prohibiting
the transfer or assignment of such benefits.  After twenty-eight
years of marriage, the appellant, Horace D. Gentry, and the
appellee, Athanett O. Gentry, were divorced in 1984.  They entered
into a property settlement which was approved by the court and
which included among its provisions the following paragraph nine:
     In the event that the husband is entitled to Social
     Security payments, the wife shall be entitled and shall
     receive one half of all payments that are made to him.
Mr. Gentry began receiving benefits in September, 1995, and did not
pay Ms. Gentry the agreed one-half of the benefits.  She filed a
Petition for Citation for Contempt because of Mr. Gentry's refusal
to obey the court-ordered property-settlement agreement.  Mr.
Gentry admitted entering into the agreement, but contended that his
Social Security benefits were nonassignable under federal law. 
     The matter was heard in June 1996, and the court ruled the
property-settlement agreement was an enforceable contract; that Mr.
Gentry owed Ms. Gentry $3, 290.00 reflecting her one-half share of
the Social Security benefits already received and that Mr. Gentry
would owe one-half of his future benefits.  
     Mr. Gentry appeals contending that paragraph nine of the
agreement violates 42 U.S.C.  407, and is unenforceable under the
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.  We agree, and
reverse the decision of the chancery court.
     The Social Security Act provides that:
     (a)  The right of any person to any future payment under
     this subchapter shall not be transferable or assignable,
     at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or
     payable or rights existing under this subchapter shall be
     subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or
     other legal process, or to the operation of any
     bankruptcy or insolvency law.
42 U.S.C.A.  407(a) (emphasis added).  The United States Supreme
Court has adopted the position that  407(a) imposes, "a broad bar
against the use of any legal process to reach all social security
benefits."  Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Bd.,