Document: 490 U.S. 581 109 S.Ct. 2023 104 L.Ed.2d 675 Gerald E. MANSELL, Appellantv.Gaye M. MANSELL. No. 87-201. Argued Jan. 10, 1989. Decided May 30, Syllabus In direct response to McCarty v. McCarty, 453 210, 101 2728, 69 589, which held that federal law as it then existed completely pre-empted the application of state community property military retirement pay, Congress enacted Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (Act), 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (1982 ed. and Supp. V), authorizes courts treat "disposable retired or retainer pay," 1408(c)(1), specifically defining such pay exclude, inter alia, any waived in order for retiree receive veterans' disability benefits, 1408(a)(4)(B). The also creates a mechanism whereby Federal Government will make payments up 50 percent disposable certain former spouses who present state-court orders granting pay. A pre-McCarty settlement agreement between appellant appellee, were divorced county Superior Court California, State, provided would appellee his total including portion he had benefits. After Act's passage, denied appellant's request modify divorce decree by removing provision requiring him share with appellee. State Appeal affirmed, rejecting contention precluded lower court from treating so holding, relied on Supreme decision reasoned did not limit court's ability enforce spouse's rights through remedies other than payments. Held: does grant power divisible upon light 1408(a)(4)(B)'s limiting language plain precise establishes 1408(c)(1) grants authority only property. Appellee's argument has no pre-emptive effect its own must be read garnishment statute designed solely when spouse, that, accordingly, 1408(a)(4)(B) defines pay" because under statutory payment are limited amounts defined term, is flawed two reasons. First, ignores fact uses quoted phrase plainly extent may Second, each 1408(c)'s subsections imposes new substantive limits courts' divide unlikely all section, except was intended pre-empt law. Thus, misplaces reliance saving clause expressly contemplates liable "other payments" excess those made mechanism, since more plausibly interpreted serving purpose defeating inference displaced garnish covered mechanism. giving thwart obvious purposes restoring their supported legislative history, which, whole, indicates both create benefits place protect retirees. Pp. 587-594. Reversed remanded. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., BRENNAN, WHITE, STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, filed dissenting opinion, BLACKMUN, joined, post, p. 595. Douglas B. Cone, Merced, Cal., appellant. Dennis A. Cornell, Cal. Justice MARSHALL Court. 1 this appeal, we decide whether courts, consistent Act, V) (Former Act), We hold they not. 2 * 3 Members Armed Forces serve specified period, generally at least 20 years, retire 3911 et seq. (Army); 6321 (Navy Marine Corps); 8911 (Air Force). amount veteran eligible calculated according number years served rank achieved. §§ 3926 3991 6325-6327 8929 Veterans became disabled result service 38 310 (wartime disability); 331 (peacetime disability). seriousness degree veteran's earn living been impaired. 314 355. 4 prevent double dipping, waives corresponding 3105.1 Because exempt federal, state, local taxation, 3101(a), retirees waive favor increase after-tax income. Not surprisingly, waivers common. 5 like several States, treats acquired during marriage When couple divorces, divides equally while spouse retains full ownership separate See Cal.Civ.Code Ann. 4800(a) (West 1983 Supp.1989). California derive performed marriage. See, e.g., Casas Thompson, 42 Cal.3d 131, 139, 228 Cal.Rptr. 33, 37-38, 720 P.2d 921, 925, cert. denied, 479 1012, 107 659, 93 713 (1986). 6 589 (1981), statutes governing prevented concluded do clear damage important personnel objectives. Id., 232-235, S.Ct., 2741-2743. reach one else. 228, 2739. reaching conclusion, particularly Congress' refusal pass legislation have allowed satisfy settlements. 228-232, 2739-2741. Finally, noting distressed plight many members, observed free change framework. 235-236, 2742-2743. 7 1408(c)(1).2 " 'Disposable pay' "the monthly hich member entitled," minus deductions. 1408(a)(4) V). Among required deducted 1408(a)(4)(B).3 8 presents, Secretary relevant service, her retiree's This ways. 1408(d). married "for period creditable determining member's eligibility 1408(d)(2), exceed 1408(e)(1). B 9 Appellant Mansell Gaye 23 parents six children. Their ended 1979 Merced County, At time, Major received Air Force and, pursuant waiver Mrs. entered into provided, part, could Civ. 55594 (May 29, 1979). 1983, asked Mansell. Mansell's without opinion. appealed Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, arguing anti-attachment protects receipt 3101(a) IV),4 Relying supra, rejected based Act. F002872 (Jan. 1987).5 after passage longer applies Government. Cal.3d, 143-151, Cal.Rptr., 40-46, P.2d, 928-933. discuss clause, 3101(a).6 petition review. 11 noted probable jurisdiction, 487 1217, 108 2868, 904 (1988), now reverse. II 12 domestic relations preeminently matters law, consistently recognized Congress, passes general legislation, rarely intends displace area. Rose Rose, 481 619, 628, 2029, 2035, 95 599 (1987); Hisquierdo Hisquierdo, 439 572, 581, 99 802, 808, 59 (1979). Thus find preemption absent evidence 'positively enactment.' 808 (quoting Wetmore Markoe, 196 68, 77, 25 172, 176, 49 L.Ed. 390 (1904)). instant case, however, presents rare instances where directly legislated area relations. 13 It see, H.R.Conf.Rep. 97-749, 165 (1982); S.Rep. 97-502, pp. 1-3, 16 (1982), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1982, 1555, sought legal landscape created decision.7 pre-existing construed overcome enacting an affirmative States Cf. Midlantic Nat. Bank New Jersey Dept. Environmental Protection, 474 494, 501, 106 755, 759-60, 88 859 14 differ sharply scope modification McCarty. views complete congressional rejection holding pre-empted; she reads authority. Mansell, United argues partial rule preempts regarding pay.8 15 Where, here, question construction, begin statute. Blum Stenson, 465 886, 896, 1541, 1547-48, 79 891 (1984); Consumer Product Safety Comm'n GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 102, 108, 100 2051, 2056, 64 766 (1980). faces formidable obstacle Section affirmatively yet limited. provides "a . either accordance jurisdiction court." 1408(c)(1). definitional section term 1408(a)(4)(B).9 language, granted property; attempts contained definition, 1408(a)(4)(B), reading set out circumstances order, spouse. According view, "[d]isposable term. 17 relies heavily clause. That provides: 18 "Nothing shall relieve liability alimony, child support, grounds maximum permitted [the mechanism]. Any unsatisfied obligation enforced means available case mechanism] paid." 1408(e)(6) (emphasis added). 19 "attempt tell what underlying property." Brief Appellee 17. For reasons discussed below, different interpretation plausible. our serves purpo e U.S., 584, 809-10 (to prohibit division property); Wissner Wissner, 338 655, 70 398, 94 424 (1950) (same). most serious flaw explanation term—"disposable pay"—is used 21 view therefore contradicted but 1408(c). Sections 1408(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4) impose 1408(c)(2) prevents transferring, selling, otherwise disposing interest pay.10 1408(c)(3) cannot can immediately receiving pay.11 And 1408(c)(4) forum shopping favorable laws.12 these provisions pre-empts fail.13 Significantly, placed restrictions same think every subsection 1408(c), 22 face daunting standard. She prevail literally Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases, 436 631, 643, 98 2053, 2061, 56 591 (1978). history indicate reason shelter payments.14 But absence immaterial statute; build record defend policy choices. specific intent resorts arguments about broad misplaced because, level, there statements contradict support arguments. Her pre-emption Senate Report House Conference restore States.15 contain indicating uncomplicated option returning unlimited States.16 Indeed, bill eliminated died Committee.17 primarily moved by, responding to, economic wives divorce.18 debates reveal concerned well protecting interests members.19 24 Our task interpret best can, second-guess wisdom choice. Rodriguez 480 522, 526, 1391, 1393, 533 (1987) (per curiam ) ("Deciding competing values sacrificed achievement particular objective very essence choice"). Given mixed purposes, clearly realize inflict harm spouses. decline misread sympathetic requires us violence ignore much history. chose do, it. III 26 stated above, judgment hereby reversed, remanded further proceedings inconsistent 27 ordered. 28 whom BLACKMUN joins, dissenting. 29 Today holds Act) denies unilaterally harsh reality consent, fair ex-spouse's simply elects income converting On Court's lose nearly 30 I respectfully dissent. 235, 2742, ex-spouse often one." dividing nondisability laws, invitation reexamine issue. promptly Today, despite overwhelming overrule completely, alter eliminate discovered issue decrees affecting assumes partially apply laws them so. Ante, 588. decision, address benefits; nor identify explicit precluding characterizing reject central premise 31 my intended, 's altogether return "to pensions manner benefits." 1604. id., 1, 1596 ("The primary remove (1981). accomplish permitting Federal, appropriate once again consider fixing parties divorce, dissolution, annulment separation"); 5, 1599 ("[T]he committee pay"); 16, 1611 found exist permit competent pertin nt should divis[i]ble"); 128 Cong.Rec. 18314 (1982) amendment returns public private pensions") (remarks Rep. Schroeder, sponsor). 32 Family traditionally concern, (1979), determination "Congress enactment' pre-empted." Ibid. "positively require" abandon concerning divisibility obtain contrary, whole thrust traditional Even beyond restoration, provide greater assistance protection before creating remedy aid awards. That, fact, preoccupation complex remedial armed enlist assist obtaining some entitlements divorce. limited, not, it, hindrance exclude "amounts compensation title 38," incorporation 1408(c)(1)'s provision, characterize 33 reinforced "[t]he deductions parallel existing employees subject alimony 459 Social Security (42 659)." 14, 1609 finds statement "is helpful why use term—'disposable pay'—to 1408(c)(1)." 592, n. 14. True, singularly unhelpful supporting lieu By contrast, cases, ed., excluded waived" eviscerated force 3101(a). 34 To take advantage remedy, n circumstances, meeting requirements. property, "specifically provid[e] amount, expressed dollars percentage member." 1408(a) (2)(C) information regular face. 1408(b)(1)(B), 1408(b)(1)(C), 1408(b)(1)(D), 1408(b)(2) sets forth procedures followed making 1408(d) places paid spouses, 1408(e)(1), 1408(e)(4)(B) clarifies event multiple conflicting orders. 1408(e)(2), 1408(e)(3)(A) 35 Subsection awards providing payable (Emphasis added.) preclude attach Nor compel conclusion gross Those three "not" do. explicitly restricted respects, 1408(c)(1)—an power—should everything grant. supports wished entirely, leaving balance responsibility States. respect, mischaracterizes insisting pre-emption. ." 592. 1408(c) effects courts—its first paragraph expands powers ("a treat"); remaining paragraphs restrict ("this create"; "[t]his authorize"; "[a] treat"). 36 remain portions unambiguously underscored 1408(e)(6). 37 (1) subparagraph (B) (4). 659) (4) explains "serves feder l mechanism." 590 agree. What understand how conclude, contradiction, All seeks "divide [federal payments] Specifically, wishes exercise family converted state-law value precisely saves "defeating" contrary inference, ante, 8, State's "by section. As aptly put emphasized limitations secretary's [are] deemed limitation define time dissolution." 150, 45, 933, words, depending pursue "available law" interest. "Nothing" relieves if possess assets equal 39 Under convert income, expense financial security entitlements. pocket percent, even 80 thereby avoid obligations distort recognition main statute, recognize sacrifices Women suffer standard following Weitzman, Economics Divorce: Economic Consequences Property, Alimony Child Support Awards, UCLA L.Rev. 1181, 1251 Military special difficulties "frequent change-of-station moves pressures homemaker extremely difficult career affording security, job skills pension protection." 6, 1601. average times, experience unemployment rate civilian counterparts. Women's Equity Action League al. Amici Curiae 10-11. Retirement moreover, single valuable asset couples. 18. Ind ed, theme emerges dire access ex-husbands' 6; 18318 ("[F]requent pursuing careers establishing independence. result, frequently unable vest plans health insurance coverage employer. become benefits—despite 'career' devoted military") Schumer). 18315, 18316, 18317, 18320, 18323, 18328. Reading faithful way 40 "shall attachment, levy, seizure equitable process whatever, beneficiary." acknowledges, must, precludes garnishing satisfaction claim just invoking claim. funds source, mean recovering So long themselves protected, calculation entitlement basis constitute "attachment" ensure needs veterans families met, see 634, 2038, (1987), interference creditors. fulfilled protected provision. 41 sum, risk having severely undermined unilateral ex-spouses inconceivable thwarted way. sure, notes, "fair equitable" members 593-594, 19. forced retire. 1408(e)(4)(B), 1408(c)(3). Moreover, still advantaged waiving benefits: resort instead cumbersome costly seeking against H.R.Rep. 98-700, 4-5 (1984) (discussing faced orders). processes ttach satisfying given strictures There concluding, allowing deny opportunity couple's inequity situations one. believe already intention example, $1500 month $500 covers distribution today. concerns sake simplicity refer authorizing Also amounts: (a) owed States; (b) employment taxes, fines forfeitures ordered courts-martial; (c) properly taxes; (d) withheld Internal Revenue Code; (e) physical disability; (f) annuity 1408(a)(4)(A)-(F) assignable authorized claim[s] creditors, [veteran]." supplemental brief, doctrine res judicata being reopened. decided appropriate, reopen question. 1987). Whether judicata, applied barred reopening settlements matter over jurisdiction. us. need independently (1950). demonstrated focus June 25, 1981, day decided, applicable date provisions. 1408(c)(1); note 1408, Pub.L. 97-252, 1006(b) (transition provisions). Although amicus brief initial pertinent part: entitled less which— "(B) member, courts-martials, [disability payments]." preempt (1982). concern hearings Hearings Subcommittee Manpower Personnel Committee Services, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., 132-133 (Sen. Exon); 70-71 (veterans' group); 184 version power, 17, conference agreed add 167 unless residence, assignment territorial court, (2) domicile, (3) consent. 1408(c)(4). include restrictions, seeing "no restricting afforded .," 9, 1604, conference, them. 167. be, extent, distinct compromise resulted more. 1408(d)(2). bill, treated 165. consid red, rejected, 9-11. conferees restriction. Instead, marriages lasted 166-167. compromise, award reference states payments, "generally 1609. statement, describes 1408(a)(4). pay"—to separation"). 16; H.R. onf.Rep. 165, 1570 considered conditions ") added); ibid. Amendment 4, ("[Senate] 1814 enforcement cases") Entitled "Nonpreemption "[f]or marital forces dissolution marriage, proceeding instituted dispositive pertaining retired, retirement, entitled." S. 1453, 1st Sess. pointed written gender neutral terms, doubt husbands wives. "it quite evident acted largely wife." Horkovich, Act: Answer Goes Beyond Fundamental Question, 287, 308 (1982-1983) original). 7, ("All form necessary solution decision"); 11; nn. 11, 12, supra.

Category: 9