Source: https://www.militarydivorce.net/Articles/Significant-Legal-Changes-To-Military-Divorce-In-Florida.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 23:53:07+00:00

Document:
Recent amendments to the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act ("USFSPA") and a seminal U.S. Supreme Court decision affecting military disability pay have upended the last twenty years of "settled" law in many states. Florida got it right in the area of valuation of military pensions and wrong with respect to how to deal with military disability pay in the context of dissolution of marriage.
In 1981, Congress passed the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. §1408, allowing state courts to treat military pensions as either property solely of the member or as property of both the member and his or her spouse in a dissolution of marriage action. Federal action was required, since before USFSPA, the area of military pension division was considered pre-empted by federal law and a military pension was not divisible by state courts. McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 (1981).
Although state courts recognized that military and other pensions were marital property of great value, what was less clear was how to value a non-military spouses' interest in the military pension, particularly when said pension was not yet vested or not yet in pay status. Should the value of the non-member spouse's interest in the military pension be based on its value as of the date of filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage, the date of the final judgment of dissolution, or the date that the member actually retired?
Florida is not a community property state, rather Florida is an equitable distribution state. On this basis, the advocates of military members and those employees who have earned government or private retirements argued that it was unfair to allow the non-military spouse to receive the benefits of time in service and promotions that occurred after the date of the divorce or filing of the case. They argued that these enhancements occurred because of non-marital labor and should be segregated and set aside to the benefit of the employee. The method of accomplishing the necessary computations has been to indulge in the fiction that the employee retired at the appropriate valuation date and figure the present dollar value of the monthly benefit that would be paid at that date as if the employee had actually retired, but without any "early retirement penalty." This dollar amount of the monthly benefit is then divided by two, if the parties were married as of the date of initial service or employment or if there is pre-marital service or employment, the correct percentage of the fictional retirement is calculated as marital and then divided by two. The result of this computation determined the share of the non-military spouse as of that date. Cost of living adjustments are added to this figure up until the date of actual retirement, in accordance with the federal or private plan provisions. See Fritz v. Fritz, 161 So.3d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
The Deloach theory of the foundation of marital effort that justified the sharing of post-dissolution enhancement in pension benefits has been flatly rejected as unfairly compensating the non-military spouse for efforts and labor of the member spouse after the dissolution of marriage. Boyett at 452.
With the appropriate computation, the member spouse has set aside to him or her all benefits earned after the date of dissolution and the non-military spouse receives cost of living adjustment, so that his or her share of the retirement is not reduced by inflation or other market factors. Such has been the general state of the law since Boyett in 1997, and due diligence has required that the practitioner be cautious not to ignore its mandate.
each cost-of-living adjustment that occurs under section 1401a(b) of this title between the time of the court order and the time of the member's retirement using the adjustment provisions under that section applicable to the member upon retirement.
3. The member's years of creditable service, on the date of divorce, dissolution, annulment, or legal separation.
In the case of a reservist, the Reserve retirement points on the date of divorce, dissolution, annulment, or legal separation.
3. The member's years or creditable service, on the date of divorce, dissolution, annulment, or legal separation.
In the case of a reservist, the Reserve retirement points, on the date of divorce, dissolution, annulment, or legal separation.
If the award language in the court order is missing any of these listed necessary variables in paragraph 280803 of the above quoted amended DoD Financial Management Regulation, then the court will have to clarify the award. (DOD FMR 7000.14-R section 290804).
WHAT DOES THE AMENDED USFSPA DO?
First, the date of valuation of the military pension is changed from the filing date of the petition for dissolution of marriage to the date of the court order that divides the military pension, as a matter of federal law. Important to note is that the amended FSPA imposes a limitation on the amount of "disposable retired pay" that can be divided and it appears that the new definition of "disposable retired pay" has pre-empted inconsistent state laws. In Florida, case law states that the date of the filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage is the date a military pension ceases to be a marital asset so this is a further limitation on marital asset classification, as opposed to valuation in military dissolution cases filed in this state. Willman v. Willman,, 944 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 1 DCA 2006). There will thus be cases where counsel will have to determine how to apply the even more restrictive Florida law to equitable distribution of a military pension, and coordinate both state and federal limitations to achieve a proper distribution.
Second, consistent with Boyett the disposable retired pay that is subject to division is the amount of basic pay measured by the member's pay grade and years of service, again at the time of the court order, which in most cases will be the date of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
Third, the non-member spouse is entitled to cost-of-living adjustments that occur between the time of the court order and the member's retirement. Congress has thus rejected the "foundation of marital effort" theory and the Deloach fraction, as a matter of federal law, thus pre-empting inconsistent laws in any state or federal territory. The end result of the amended federal law is to the financial advantage of the military member and will be implemented by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service as they review orders submitted to that office from Florida and other state courts.
Military family law cases involve an interplay between federal statutes and regulations, federal court decisions, and state laws. This discussion shows how all three branches of the federal government have the final word and can significantly alter the rights and responsibilities of military members and their families, after years of debate, seemingly quickly, efficiently, and with clarity.
Peter Cushing, Winter Park, Florida, October, 2017.
Peter Cushing is a board certified marital and family law attorney and a retired Captain, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy Reserve. He has written and lectured extensively on issues of military family law for the Florida Bar since 1995. He is a member of the Florida, New York, and Hawaii bars. He practices law and does consulting work throughout the state of Florida and various states on military family law matters. This article was published in The Florida Bar Family Law Section Commentator Spring, 2018.
•1. Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265, (Fla. 1986), Pastore v. Pastore, 497 So.2d 635 (Fla. 1986).
•2. Deloach v. Deloach, 590 So.2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), disapproved by Boyett v. Boyett 703 So.2d 451 (Fla. 1997).
•3. Boyett v. Boyett, 703 So.2d 451 (Fla.1997).
•4. Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, (1987).
If you have a law that bars courts from dividing up disability pay, but allows them to award money from another source to compensate for the inability to divide disability pay, he concluded, "that's the sort of thing that gives law a bad name."
•6. Howell v. Howell, 581 U.S. _____, 2017.
•7. In cases of "concurrent receipt" where the disability is 50% or more, there is no "dollar for dollar" waiver of disposable retired pay and thus no reduction in the non-military spouse's share of the regular retirement. See 10 U.S.C. §1414 (2004).

References: §1408
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1414