Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05101/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05101-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 354
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CHARLOTTE TAYLOR-TILLOTSON, AND On behalf 

of Lawrence Joseph Tillotson (Deceased),

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-5101

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:13-cv-00016-CFL, Judge Charles F. 

Lettow. 

______________________ 

Decided: January 20, 2015 

______________________ 

CHARLOTTE TAYLOR-TILLOTSON, West Palm Beach, 

Florida, pro se.

MICHAEL D. SNYDER, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department 

of Justice, of Washington, DC, for appellee. With him on 

the brief were JOYCE R. BRANDA, Acting Assistant Attorney General, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., Director, and 

REGINALD T. BLADES, JR., Assistant Director. 

1 

Case: 14-5101 Document: 26-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/20/2015
2 TAYLOR-TILLOTSON v. US

______________________ 

Before DYK, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Charlotte Taylor-Tillotson appeals the decision of the 

United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing her 

claim for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, 

Death Pension, and Accrued Benefits (“Dependency 

Compensation”) for lack of jurisdiction and entering 

judgment in favor of the Government on her claim for 

benefits under the Reserve Component Survivor Benefits 

Program (“RCSBP”). For all of the following reasons, we 

affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Lawrence J. Tillotson served in the Army Reserves from March 17, 1969, to August 1, 1983. He then 

served on active duty in the Army from August 2, 1983, to 

December 10, 1991, when he was honorably discharged. 

On February 14, 1992, Mr. Tillotson reentered military 

service as a member of the Montana Army National 

Guard, where he served until his death on May 3, 1995. 

Mr. Tillotson served a total of 21 years, 10 months, and 29 

days in the military; the final 3 years, 2 months, and 20 

days were served as a member of the Montana Army 

National Guard. 

While in the Army Reserves, Mr. Tillotson married 

Charlotte Taylor. Two years later, the couple entered into 

a property settlement agreement indicating marital 

separation. A Montana state court issued a decree dissolving the marriage. Military records reflect that, thereafter, Mr. Tillotson held himself out as divorced, except 

for two months where Mr. Tillotson received a housing 

allowance for a dependent. Mr. Tillotson’s death certificate also indicated he was divorced at the time of his 

death.

Case: 14-5101 Document: 26-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/20/2015
TAYLOR-TILLOTSON v. US 3

After Mr. Tillotson’s death, Ms. Taylor-Tillotson filed 

an application for Dependency Compensation with the 

Department of Veterans Affairs. Ms. Tillotson’s claim 

was denied on March 8, 2013. No appeal was filed.

On December 7, 2011, Ms. Taylor-Tillotson applied for

RCSBP benefits. Her request was initially denied by the 

Army on the ground that Mr. Tillotson had not completed 

the required 20 years of service. Ms. Taylor-Tillotson 

appealed this decision to the Army Board for Correction of 

Military Records (“ABCMR”). The ABCMR denied her 

application for two reasons: (1) Mr. Tillotson was not 

married at the time of his death; and (2) Mr. Tillotson did 

not serve the last 6 years of his service as a reserve component soldier. 

On January 7, 2013, Ms. Taylor-Tillotson filed suit in 

the Court of Federal Claims pro se. She sought annuity 

payments under the RCSBP and Dependency Compensation benefits. The Government filed a motion to dismiss 

the Dependency Compensation claim for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss the RCSBP 

claim for failure to state a claim. 

The Court of Federal Claims granted both motions. 

The Court of Federal Claims determined that it lacked 

jurisdiction to consider the Dependency Compensation 

claim because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

has exclusive jurisdiction over determinations of veterans’ 

benefits. The Court of Federal Claims also agreed with 

the ABCMR that Ms. Taylor-Tillotson was not entitled to 

RCSBP benefits. In coming to this conclusion, the Court 

of Federal Claims took judicial notice of the divorce decree 

between Mr. Tillotson and Ms. Taylor-Tillotson. Ms. 

Taylor-Tillotson appeals. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). 

Case: 14-5101 Document: 26-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/20/2015
4 TAYLOR-TILLOTSON v. US

DISCUSSION

Whether the Court of Federal Claims possesses jurisdiction over a claim is a question of law that we review de 

novo. Navajo Nation v. United States, 631 F.3d 1268, 

1272 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We review legal decisions of the 

Court of Federal Claims without deference and review its 

factual findings for clear error. Ferreiro v. United States, 

350 F.3d 1318, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Barrett Ref. 

Corp. v. United States, 242 F.3d 1055, 1058 (Fed. Cir.

2001)).

First, Ms. Taylor-Tillotson challenges the Court of 

Federal Claims’ calculation of Mr. Tillotson’s years of 

service as relevant to the RCSBP claim. Ms. TaylorTillotson argues that the Court of Federal Claims’ calculation was in error because it was inconsistent with an 

opinion issued by the Comptroller General in 1952. Ms. 

Taylor-Tillotson contends that Mr. Tillotson had 21 years, 

10 months, and 29 days of military service—13 years, 2 

months, and 29 days of which is reserve component service. The Government argues that Ms. Taylor-Tillotson 

waived this argument by failing to make it in the Court of 

Federal Claims and, even if Ms. Taylor-Tillotson did not 

waive it, she fails to identify an error in the Court of 

Federal Claims’ analysis. We agree. 

Ms. Taylor-Tillotson fails to identify any reversible error. As the Court of Federal Claims noted, “Ms. TaylorTillotson’s statement that [Mr. Tillotson] completed over 

13 years of qualified reserve service is correct.” TaylorTillotson v. United States, 115 Fed. Cl. 800, 808 (2014). 

However, “the question is not the total time Mr. Tillotson 

served as a reserve member, rather the eight most recently accrued years of qualified service.” Id. Because Mr. 

Tillotson’s eight most recently accrued years of qualified 

service were not in a reserve component, Ms. TaylorTillotson is not eligible for RCSBP benefits. 

Case: 14-5101 Document: 26-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/20/2015
TAYLOR-TILLOTSON v. US 5

Second, Ms. Taylor-Tillotson argues that the Court of 

Federal Claims erred when it took judicial notice of the 

divorce decree for the purposes of resolving the motion to 

dismiss the RCSBP claim. Ms. Taylor-Tillotson asks this 

Court to find the divorce decree “void” under Rule 60(b)(4) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 201 

of the Federal Rules of Evidence, “[t]he court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute 

because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s 

territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily 

determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” The Court of Federal Claims’ decision 

to take judicial notice of the divorce decree served only to 

confirm the ABCMR finding regarding the divorce. The 

fact of the divorce was accurately and readily determined 

from a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Thus, the Court of Federal Claims’ decision to 

take judicial notice of the divorce decree was proper. 

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments. Because they do not affect the outcome of our 

decision, we do not address them. 1

In sum, the Court of Federal Claims’ decision denying 

Ms. Taylor-Tillotson’s RCSBP benefits is supported by 

substantial evidence and is in accordance with law.

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, the decision of the 

Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

1 Ms. Taylor-Tillotson does not contest the Court of 

Federal Claims’ dismissal of her Dependency Compensation claim. 

 

Case: 14-5101 Document: 26-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/20/2015
6 TAYLOR-TILLOTSON v. US

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 14-5101 Document: 26-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/20/2015