### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 803 -CV

P hyl lis Ar le ne Be ye r , A ppe lla nt

v. Eugene Albert Beye r , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAY S COUNTY , 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 2004 -11 55 , HO NORAB LE JACK H. RO B ISO N , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Phy llis Arlene B ey er a

ppeals fr om the domestic relations order portion of a divorc e de c re e awa

rd ing he r 34 .5 % of Eu g e ne Al be rt B e y e r’ s dis po sa ble re tir e me nt p ay

re c e ive d a s a

re su lt of his service in the Unit ed S tates Armed For ces. The sole issue on a ppeal is whe ther the tria l court proper ly calc ulated the pe rce ntag e of Mr
. Be y er’ s retire ment benef its to which Ms. B ey er is entitled purs u an t t o a mediate d settlement ag ree ment. We will reverse the domestic re lations order to the exten t it aw ar d s M s . B e y e r o n ly 3 4
. 5 % o f th e b e n e f it s an d r e n d e r ju d g me n t th a t M s . Be y er be
aw ar d e d 4 2
. 0 8 5 % o f

M r . B e ye r ’ s d i s p o s a

b l e r e t i r e m e n tp ay.
F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND The Be y ers wer e marrie d on April 5, 1963, at which time Mr
. Be y er was a n active
m e mb e r o f t h e U n i t e d

S t a t e s A r

m e d F o r c e s . T h e B e y e r s w e r e d i v o r c e d o n M a y 1 , 2 0 0 6
. In Marc h 2005, during the di vorce proce eding s, the Bey ers pa rticipated in a

mediation at which they2

a g re e d to and sig ne d a Me diate d Se ttl e me nt Ag re e me nt that, a mon g oth e r thi ng s, me mor ia lize d th e ir agreemen t r egardi ng th e ma th ema ti cal formu la f or d iv id in g Mr. Bey er’s mi li tary ret ir eme ntben efi ts. The B ey ers a g ree d that Ms. Be y er wa s entitled to half of the c ommunity -prope rty portion of Mr. B ey er’ s milit ary retire ment. They also ag ree d that the community -prope rty portion was equa l to the quotient arrive d at by dividing the number of m onths Mr. Bey er w as in the ser vice dur ing the
marr ia g e by

the tot a l “ numbe r o f m on ths of c re dit a ble se rv ice” Mr. Bey er ha d a c c umu late d at hi s retire ment. The only

disputed issue is how many months of “cr editable s er v i ce” Mr. B ey er ha d
acc umulated upon his retire ment—the denominator in the c ommunity -prope rty calc ulation. The Mediated Settlement Ag ree ment provided that if the parties could not ag ree on the computation of the community -prope rty portion of the military

retire ment, they

wer e re quired to submit that issue to the court for resolution. Although the y ag ree d that the numerator in the
c omp utatio n, the numbe r o f m on ths of Mr . B e y e r’ s se rv ic e duri ngthe marr ia g e , w a s 2 18 , th e y c ou ld not ag ree on the denominator, the total number of months of cr editable se rvice Mr. B ey er ha d
acc rued at his retirement on May 30, 1981. The di s agr eeme nt arose be cause Mr. B ey er inc luded 60 months of National Guar d duty befor e the pa rties marr ied as pa rt of cr editable se rvice , which M s . Be y er c ontends should be excluded from the c reditable -ser vice c alculation. Mr. B ey er argues that his cre ditable servic e co m mence d when he beg an ser vice in the National Guard on Dec ember

6, 1954. Consequently , Mr. B ey er c ontends on appe al that the denominator in the community

proper ty compu t ati on should be 317 months, and Ms. Be y er should re ceive 34.5% of his re tir e me nt b e ne fi ts. Ms. B e y e r c ounters that hi s c re dit a ble se rv ic e did

no t be g in u

nti l3

J anuar y 15, 1960, whe n h e en t er ed United States Ar med For ces a ctive duty . She asser ts that the de no min a tor

sh ou ld b e 25 9 mo nth s, wh ic h e nti tle s h e r t o 4 2. 08 5% of the be ne fi ts. Pur su ant to the Me diate d Se ttl e me nt Agre e me nt, the pa rt ie s a tte nd e d a he ari ng in J anuar y 2006 t o ad d re s s t he dispute re g ardingthe division of Mr. Be y er’ s mili tary retire ment benef its. On May 1, 2006, an assoc iate judg e sig ned a dome stic relations orde r aw ardingMs. Be y er 34 .5 % o f t

he mil ita ry re tir e me nt ben efi ts
. Ms . B e y e r f ile d a no tic e of a pp e a l f ro m th e do me sti c relations order see king de novo revie w by the tri al co urt. Ms. Be y er c ontended that ther e wa s no evidenc e supportingthe associate judge ’s finding , using 317 months as the denominator, that 69% of the mil ita

ry be ne fi ts w a s c omm

un ity pr op e rt y and , c on se qu e ntl y , th e re wa s n o ev ide nc e to support the o r d e r

aw ar d in g M s . B e y e r

o n e - h a lf o f th e c o mm

u n it y p o rti o n , 3 4
. 5 % , o f

th e mi li tary
re tir e me nt b e ne fi ts.

At an Au g us t 29 , 20 06 he ari ng , the tr ia l c ourt re vie we d, de no vo , t he d ome sti c relations order dividing Mr. B ey er’ s mili tary retire ment benef

its. Ms. B ey er a

rgued at the he aring that t h e orde r did not comply with the mediated se ttlement ag ree ment beca use it contained a

n improper c omputation of the perc entag e of the retire ment benef its to be awarde d to her. Ms. B ey er te sti fi e d that Mr
. B e y e r be g an a c tiv e du ty a pp ro xima te ly thr e e y e ars be fo re the y we re marri ed in April 1963, and that he retire d in June 1981. Ms. Be y er te stified that cre ditable servic e, for purposes
o f r e t i r e m e n tb e n e f

i t s , d i d n o ti n c l u d e t h e p e r i o d

o f t i m e i nw h i c hM r . B e ye r

w a s o n “ i n a c t i v e d

u t y” with the National Gua

rd. Ms. Be y er te stified, using the calc ulatio n t h e p ar t i es ag ree d to in the Me diate d Se ttl e me nt A g re e me nt , t h a t s h e w a s e nti tle d to 42 .0 85 % o f t he mil ita ry re tir e me nt b e ne fi ts. Mr. B ey er did not testify , nor did his counsel cr oss-ex am i n e Ms. B ey er or attempt to offer

anyMs. Be y er t es t i fi ed that she and Mr. B ey er ma rried on A

pril 5, 1963 and Mr. B ey er w as 1 retire d in J une 1981. In his brief, Mr. B ey er state s that hi s re t i re m en t d at e wa s May 30, 1981. Consequentl y , M r. Be y er w as marr ied to Ms. Be y er a total of 218, not 219, months while serving i nt h e U n i t edS t at es Ar m edFo rc es . At t h e h ea r i n g , t h e t ri al co u rt i n d i ca t edt h at h e w o u l d “s i gn exactly what [the associate judge ] said.” T he rec ord does not include the a ssociate judg e’s f inding in this reg ard. The qualified domestic relations orde r signe d by the trial court a fter the hear ing but prior to enter ing the finding s and conc lusi o ns is consistent with the evidence and re cites that during their m arr iag e, Mr. Be y er served “eig hteen (18) y ear s and two (2) months [ 218 months] of cre ditable servic e.” 4 evidenc e to support a n aw ard of 34.5% of the military

retire ment benef

its to Ms . Be y er. A t the conclusion of the he aring , the trial cour t signe d a domestic re lations order ide ntical to that signe d by the associate judg e.

Af te r s ig nin g the or de r, the tr ia l c ourt e nte re d th e fo llo wi ngfi nd ing s o f f a c t: No
. 12
. Eu g e ne Al be rt B e y e r se rv e d a tot a l of 31 7 months of c re dib le [sic ] se rv ic e in

the Un ite d St a te s A rm e d F or c e s. No. 13. Eug ene Albert Be y er was marrie d to Phy llis Arlene Be y er for a total of 219 1 months wh ile se rv ingin t he Un ite d St a te s A rm e d F or c e s. No. 14. The c ommunity interest in the military

retire ment pay

of E u g ene A lbert Be y er is s ixty -n ine (6 9% ) p e rc e nt. Ba sed on these finding s, the trial court’s domestic relations order a war ded Ms. B ey er 34.5% of the mi li tary ret ir eme ntben efi ts repr esen ti ng hal f of th e com mu ni ty in ter est . T hi s ap peal fol lo wed . By two issues, Ms. B ey er c ontends that (1) the awa rd of 34.5% was unsupporte d by any evidenc e, wa s contra ry to the only evidenc e presented at the hearing , and was, there fore , an abuse of discre tion, and (2) the tr ial court’s de n i al of her motion for new tria l was er roneous be cause the evidenc e wa s ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the div isi on

of mil ita ry re tir e me nt b e ne fi ts.5 STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW A tri a l ju dg e is c ha

rg e d w ithdiv idi ngthe c omm un ity in a

“ jus t and ri g ht”
mann e r, c on sid e ri ngthe ri g hts of bo th part ie s. Te x. F a m. Cod e Ann. § 7 .0 01 (We st 2 00 6) ; Moroch v. Collins , 174 S.W .3d 849, 855 (Tex. A pp.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied)
. The court has broad discretion in makingits just and rig ht divisi on; absent a clea r abuse of discre tion, we will not dist urb that division. Mu rff

v . M ur ff , 6 15 S.W. 2d 69 6, 69 8- 99 (T e x. 19 81 ); Boyd v . Boyd , 67 S.W .3d 398, 4 0 6 ( T e x . Ap p . — F o rtW o rt h2 0 0 2 , n o p e t
. )
. A t r i a l c o u rt a b u s e s i t s d i s c r e t i o ni f

i ta c t s ar b i t r ar i l y,
unrea sonably , without r eg ard to guiding leg al principles, or without supporting evide nce. K- Ma rt Cor p. v . H on e y c utt , 2 4 S. W.3 d 3 57 , 3 60 (Tex . 200 0) ; Bocque t v. Herring , 972 S.W .2d 19, 20 (T e x. 19 98 ). Fin di ngs o f f a c t e nte re d in

a c a se tr ie d to the c ourt

have the same fo rc e and

dig nit y as a jury ’s answe rs to jury questions. An de rso n v . Ci ty of S e v e n P oin ts , 806 S.W .2d 7 91, 794 (Tex. 1991). Such finding s of fact are reviewable for leg al and f actua l sufficienc y

of the e vidence to support them by

the same standa

rds that ar e applied i n revie wing evidenc e supporting a jury ’s
answe rs. Ortiz v. Jones , 917 S.W. 2d 77 0, 77 2 ( Te x. 19 96 ); Catali na v. Blasdel , 881 S.W .2d 295, 297 (Tex. 1994).
DI SCU SSIO N

Th e B e y e rs a g re e d in

me diatio n to div ide Mr . B e y e r’ s mi lit ary re tir e me nt be ne fi ts
a c c or din g to t

he fo rm ula se t out in the Me diate d Sett le me nt A g re e me nt. Ne ith e r p art y c on te nd s in this appeal that the f

ormula does not apply . The issue here is whether the t rial cour t used the prope r number a s the denominator in the agr eed formula. Ms. Be y er complains that the t rial cour t’s finding that the cor

rec t number is 317 months is not supported by sufficie nt evidence , and is, in fac t, contrar yDuringt h e h ear ing the re w as a br ief discussion re g ardingMr. B eyer’ s National Gua rd 2 service at which c ounsel for Mr. B ey er state d that Mr. B ey er w as not a “ wee kend wa rrior,” and that his National Guar d service took place dur ing the Kore an War. The re w as n o t , h o we v er , any t es t i m ony or evide nce introduc ed re g ardingeither the nature or duration of Mr. Be y er’ s National Guar d service
. 6 to the only

evidenc e pre sented to the court. We ag ree . The only evidenc e off ere d to establish the duration of Mr. Bey er’ s cre ditable s ervic e was Ms. Be y er’ s testimony that Mr. Bey er ha d been on active duty a li tt le o v e r

thr e e y e ar s a t t

h e ti me o f

th e ir ma r r ia g e an d th a t h e r e ti r e d

in Ju n e 1 9 81. There was no ev i d en ce offer ed that could support the tr ial court’s f inding that Mr. B ey er ha d 317 months of ac t ive duty . The trial c ourt abused its discre tion by basing its divi sion of the milit ary retire ment b enefits on a finding that had no supporting evidenc e. See K-M art Corp. , 24 S.W .3d at 360.

The only evidenc e pre sented re g ardingthe prope r division of the milit ary retire ment be ne fi ts w a s Ms
. B e y e r’ s te sti mony that sh e is e nti tle d to 42 .0 85 % ba se d on Mr . B e y e r’ s c re dit a ble service of 259 m onths beg inning “a li ttle over three y ear s” before they wer e married and c ontinuing until J une 1981. This evidenc e wa s unchalleng ed and unc ontroverte d.

On a pp e a l, Mr. B e y e r a

rgue s th a t, i n f

a c t, t he c re dit a ble -s e rv ic e c a lc ulatio n s ho uld include the pe riod of time f ro m December

6, 1954 throug h J anuar y 15, 1960 when he was perf orming National Guar d service . Ms. Be y er disputes Mr. B ey er’ s contention that National Gua rd service constitutes “ac tive duty ” for purposes of calc ulating the cre ditable-ser vice c omponent of the ag ree d formula f

or dividing the benef

i t s . Reg ardle ss of the merits of Mr. B ey er’ s contention, an issue we do not r eac h, Mr. Be y er failed to present a ny evidenc e of the duration of his National Guard
se rv ic e to t

he tr ia l c ourt

a t th e he ari ngto d e te rm ine the pr op e r d ivi sio n o f b e ne fi ts. C o n s e qu e n t l y, 27

this ev i d en ce w as not befor e the tria l court, is not part of the a ppellate r ecor d, and ca

nnot be considere d on appea l.

B e c a u s e t h e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o rt t h e f

i n d i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u rt a

b u s e d its dis c re tio n b y

awa rd ingMs. B e y e r 3 4. 5% of Mr . B e y e r’ s mi lit ary ret ir eme nt be ne fi ts. We s us ta in Ms. Be y er’ s first issue and re verse the domestic re lations order a war ding Ms. B ey er 34 .5% of the milit ary retire ment benef

its. The only

evidenc e in the re cord r eg ardingthe prope r division of the benef its supports Ms. Bey er’ s contention that she is entitled to 42.085% of the military retire ment benef its based on Mr. Be y er’ s service rec ord and the formula a g ree d to by the par ties in the Mediated Settlement Ag ree men t
. Consequently , we r ender judgme nt awar ding Ms. B ey er 42.085% of Mr. B ey er’ s mili tary

retire ment benef

its. See Te x. R. Ap p. P. 4 3. 2( d) (c ourt of a pp e a ls m ay

re ve rs e trial court’ s judgme nt in whole or i n part and rende r j udg ment that trial court should have rende red)
. Havingso conclude d, we need not address Ms. Be y er’ s second issue c omplaining of the trial cour

t’s de nia l of he r m oti on

fo r n e w tri a l.
CO NC LU SION We conclude that the trial court ab used its discretion by awa rding Ms. Be y er a perc entag e of the milit ary retire ment benef its that was unsupporte d by the evidenc e. We re verse the domes t i c relations order portion of the divorce decr ee to the e x tent it awar ds Ms. Beyer 34.5% of Mr. B ey er’ s mili tary

retire ment benef

its. W e re nder the judgme nt that the trial court s h o u l d have rende red ba sed on the only evidenc e pre sented re g ard i n g t h e p roper division of the benef

its, and
or de r t hat Ms . B e y e r b e awa

rd e d 4 2. 08 5% of

Mr . B e y e r’ s mi lit ary

re tir e me nt b e ne fi ts.8 ________________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Waldrop and He nson Reverse d and Rende red Filed: Jul y

28, 2009