Title: KAREN CRAYK, f/k/a KAREN GLOVER V. CARL GLOVER

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

KAREN CRAYK, f/k/a KAREN GLOVER V. CARL GLOVER2008 WY 14176 P.3d 645Case Number: S-07-0094Decided: 02/08/2008
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
KAREN CRAYK, 
f/k/a KAREN GLOVER,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
CARL 
GLOVER,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

The 
Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

 
 
John J. Metzke, Hirst & 
Applegate, P.C., Cheyenne, 
Wyoming.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

 
 
Donald A. Cole, Cole & Cole, 
Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, 
HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

[¶1]           
Karen 
Crayk, formerly Karen Glover, seeks review of a district court order amending 
her original decree of divorce.  We 
reverse.

[¶2]           
Ms. Crayk 
presents the following issue:

Did the trial court err by entering 
an amended decree of divorce on remand which stated the award of military 
retired pay as both a percentage of disposable military retired pay and as a 
fixed dollar amount and which was not consistent with the holding of the Wyoming 
Supreme Court?

Mr. Glover states the issue as 
follows:

Did the district court err by 
entering an amended decree of divorce on remand which explained the award of 
military retired pay and awarded the ex-spouse a portion of the military retired 
pay as a fixed dollar amount?

[¶3]           
Ms. Crayk 
and Mr. Glover were married in 1979 in Louisiana, and divorced on February 10, 1997 in Wyoming.  During that time, Mr. Glover served 17 
years in the United 
States military.  The original divorce decree awarded Ms. 
Crayk "one-half (1/2) of the sum that accrued in [Mr. Glover]'s retirement fund 
during the first seventeen years of [Mr. Glover]'s military 
career."

[¶4]           
In 2003, 
Ms. Crayk filed a Motion to Amend and/or 
Modify Decree of Divorce.  In 
her motion, Ms. Crayk requested that the divorce decree's retirement pay 
provision be modified to meet the definition of "court order" found in the 
Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA), 10 U.S.C. § 1408 
(2002).  The district court granted 
the motion and entered an order amending the original decree.  In the amended decree, the district 
court awarded Ms. Crayk:

33.59621% of the Plaintiff Carl 
Glover's disposable military retired pay, to be computed by multiplying 50% 
times a fraction, the numerator of which is two hundred thirteen (213), 
representing the number of months the parties were married during the Plaintiff 
Carl Glover's creditable military service and the denominator of which is three 
hundred seventeen (317), representing Plaintiff Carl Glover's total months of 
creditable military service.       

[¶5]           
Mr. 
Glover appealed, contending that the amended decree improperly awarded Ms. Crayk 
a portion of Mr. Glover's longevity and promotion pay increases that accrued 
after the divorce.  Mr. Glover 
claimed that the language of the original divorce decree did not support the 
formula adopted by the district court.  
We agreed and reversed because the amended decree improperly modified the 
original decree.  In essence, it 
awarded Ms. Crayk retirement benefits that she had not been awarded in the 
original decree.  The original 
decree awarded Ms. Crayk fifty percent of the retirement pay that had accrued 
during the first 17 years of Mr. Glover's military service.  In contrast, the amended decree allowed 
Ms. Crayk to benefit from promotions and longevity pay increases Mr. Glover 
received after the divorce.  Glover v. Crayk, 2005 WY 143, ¶ 13, 122 P.3d 955, 958 (Wyo. 2005).  We 
remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

[¶6]           
On 
remand, over Ms. Crayk's objection, the district court entered an amended decree 
containing the following provision:

[T]he Decree of Divorce . . . is 
hereby amended . . . to specifically provide that [Ms. Crayk] is awarded 20.987% 
of the disposable military retirement pay [that Mr. Glover] would have received 
had [Mr. Glover] retired on 10 Feb 1997 with a retirement pay base of $2,639.70 
with 20 years and 1 month of [creditable] service.  This is based upon 213 months of 
marriage and 242 months of creditable service.  Based on this formula, [Ms. Crayk] will 
receive a fixed monthly payment of $554.00.[1]

This time, Ms. Crayk has 
appealed.

[¶7]           
It is 
undisputed that the amended decree was intended to comply with the requirements 
of the USFSPA.  The USFSPA 
definition of "court order" requires that the order, "specifically provide[] for 
the payment of an amount, expressed in dollars or as a percentage of disposable 
retired pay, from the disposable retired pay of a member to the spouse or former 
spouse of that member."  10 U.S.C. § 
1408(a)(2)(C) (emphasis added).  Ms. 
Crayk contends that the order does not comply with the requirements of the 
USFSPA because it defines the retirement benefit as both a percentage and a 
fixed dollar amount.  Mr. Glover 
contends that the district court's order contains no conflict and that the court 
intended to award a fixed dollar sum.  
He maintains that the formula was provided merely to demonstrate how the 
district court calculated the fixed amount.  

[¶8]           
The order 
in this case contains two relevant provisions.  The first is that "[Ms. Crayk] is 
awarded 20.987% of the disposable military retirement pay [that Mr. Glover] 
would have received had [Mr. Glover] retired on 10 Feb 1997 with a retirement 
pay base of $2,639.70 with 20 years and 1 month of [creditable] service."  This language, read in isolation, 
appears to award Ms. Crayk a percentage of Mr. Glover's military 
retirement.  The language tracks 
model language published by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service 
(DFAS)2: 

The former spouse is awarded ____% 
of the disposable military retired pay the member would have received had the 
member retired with a retired pay base of ____ and with ____ years of creditable 
service on _____.

Defense Finance and Accounting 
Service, Uniformed Services Former 
Spouses' Protection Act: Dividing Military Retired Pay, 11 (rev. 8/7/2007), 
available at 
http://www.dfas.mil/garnishment/retiredmilitary.html.3 DFAS 
describes this type of award as a "hypothetical award."  Hypothetical awards provide the spouse a 
percentage of the retired pay to which the spouse would have been entitled had 
the member retired on a particular date.  
Importantly, a hypothetical award allows the spouse to receive Cost of 
Living Adjustments (COLAs).   Id. 
at 10.  

[¶9]           
The 
district court, however, also employed the following language: "Based on this 
formula, [Ms. Crayk] will receive a fixed monthly payment of $554.00." This 
language appears to award Ms. Crayk a fixed monthly payment "expressed in 
dollars."  The distinction between a 
"percentage" retirement award and a "fixed" monthly payment award is 
significant.  According to DFAS, 
"[i]f a fixed dollar amount award is used, the former spouse would not be 
entitled to any of the member's retired pay cost of living adjustments."  Id. 
at 6.  The amended decree therefore 
contains two conflicting provisions: the first provides for a percentage award 
that would result in COLAs for Ms. Crayk, and the second, "fixed dollar" 
provision does not.  We are unable 
to reconcile the two provisions or to determine the intent of the district court 
from the challenged language of the amended decree.  

[¶10]       
The 
original 1997 divorce decree does not specifically address the COLA issue and 
the district court must make a determination as to which approach, "percentage" 
or "fixed dollar," was intended by the original decree.  The amended decree is also at odds with 
the USFSPA, which requires that the award be expressed as either a percentage or 
a fixed dollar amount.  10 U.S.C. § 
1408(a)(2)(C).  This award does 
both, creating an ambiguity.  The 
amended decree fails to accomplish the intended goal of creating a 
USFSPA-compliant order.

[¶11]       
Reversed and remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1We note that 242 months actually 
converts to 20 years and 2 months, rather than 20 years and 1 
month.

2DFAS is the federal agency 
responsible for disbursing retirement payments to members of the military.  Additionally, it is responsible for 
directing eligible payments to spouses pursuant to the USFSPA.  Accordingly, DFAS procedures are 
particularly relevant when interpreting award language intended to result in 
direct payments to spouses.

3We published a prior version of this 
document as an appendix to our opinion in Kelly v. Kelly, 2003 WY 133, App. I, 78 P.3d 220, 224-31 (Wyo. 2003).