Source: http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/098wn2d/098wn2d0046.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 05:01:19+00:00

Document:
Divorce and Dissolution - Disposition of Property - Military Pension - Collateral Attack. A division of military retirement income provided for in a dissolution decree which became final prior to the decision of MCCARTY v. MCCARTY, 453 U.S. 210 (1981) prohibiting such a division is not subject to collateral attack.
 Judgment - Collateral Attack - Subject Matter Jurisdiction. A final judgment is not subject to collateral attack based on the court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction unless the court had manifestly abused its authority in entertaining the action, allowing the judgment to stand would substantially infringe the authority of another tribunal or governmental agency, or the court lacked the capability to make an informed decision regarding its jurisdiction and the collateral attack should be allowed as a matter of procedural fairness.
 Common Law - New Principle of Law - Retroactive Application - Factors. A change in the common law will not be applied retroactively if the former law was relied on by the parties and the court, the change was not prefigured in previous cases, denial of retroactive application would not adversely affect the purpose of the change, and the injustice or hardship resulting from retroactive application would exceed the harm resulting from prospective application.
 Divorce and Dissolution - Disposition of Property - Military Pension - Retroactivity. MCCARTY v. MCCARTY, 453 U.S. 210 (1981), which prohibited state courts from dividing military retirement income under community property laws, does not apply retroactively.
NATURE OF ACTION: Retired servicemen sought to have the property settlement portions of their dissolution decrees modified by divesting their former spouses of any interest in their military retirement pay.
Superior Court: The Superior Court for Pierce County, Nos. 251464, 276898, Stanley W. Worswick and Robert A. Jacques, JJ., on October 20 and November 3, 1981, refused to modify the decrees.
Supreme Court: Holding that the dissolution decrees were not subject to collateral attack and that the United States Supreme Court decision precluding the division of military retirement pay did not apply retroactively, the court AFFIRMS the action of the trial court.
COUNSEL: TALBOT, ORLANDINI & WALDRON, by CHARLES W. TALBOT, for appellant Brown.
PETER H. D. MCKEE, MICHAEL J. SLISH, PATRICK HENRY MCINTYRE, and MCINTYRE & TARUTIS, for appellant Wonders.
WILLIAM H. GRIFFIES, for respondent Brown.
FREDERICK O. FROHMADER and FROHMADER & ASSOCIATES, for respondent Wonders.
ANDREW M. WALKOVER and ALAN KIRTLEY, amici curiae for respondents.
MAJORITY OPINION: The Brown and Wonders marriages were dissolved in 1979 and 1977, respectively. Both contained property settlements which included a division of military retired pay. These property settlements were stipulated to by the parties and were unappealed. In Washington unappealed property settlements are immune from modification. THOMPSON v. THOMPSON, 82 Wn.2d 352, 510 P.2d 827 (1973). RCW 26.09.170.
Ordinarily, this would be the end of the litigation. However, on June 26, 1981, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in MCCARTY v. MCCARTY, 453 U.S. 210, 69 L. Ed. 2d 589, 101 S. Ct. 2728 (1981). The Court held federal law preempted and thus state courts were precluded from dividing military retired pay in property settlements under their own community property laws.
Plaintiff Ronald Wonders petitioned for the dissolution decree in his case to be modified so that subsequent to the date of MCCARTY he would receive 100 percent of his military retired pay. Plaintiff Archie Brown petitioned that the full amount of the military retired pay be paid to him as of the date of his decree of dissolution. In both instances the trial court denied the petitions. We affirm.
Plaintiffs make two arguments: (1) Because of MCCARTY, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over military retired pay and therefore the disposition of the military retired pay was void. This being so the judgments are void and subject to collateral attack. CR 60(b). (2) Even if there was subject matter jurisdiction, MCCARTY should be applied retroactively. We disagree with both of these propositions.
" The economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family home or the right to live therein for reasonable periods to a spouse having custody of any children.
RCW 26.09.080(4). After doing this, all that is required is the court make a disposition "as shall appear just and equitable".
(3) The judgment was rendered by a court lacking capability to make an adequately informed determination of a question concerning its own jurisdiction and as a matter of procedural fairness the party seeking to avoid the judgment should have opportunity belatedly to attack the court's subject matter jurisdiction.
When the circumstances in this case are measured against the principles in section 12, the parties are precluded from contesting the issue of subject matter jurisdiction before the court.
"First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied . . . or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed . . . Second, it has been stressed that "we must . . . weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation." . . . Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for "[w]here a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the 'injustice or hardship' by a holding of nonretroactivity."
 We believe in the cases before us all the criteria for nonretroactivity have been met. The parties and the trial courts here relied on what they believed to be the ability of our courts to divide military retired pay in a dissolution proceeding and on the requirement that in making a property division all of the property of the parties was to be considered. RCW 26.09.080; PAYNE v. PAYNE, 82 Wn.2d 573, 512 P.2d 736 (1973). The Supreme Court in HISQUIERDO v. HISQUIERDO, 439 U.S. 572, 583, 59 L. Ed. 2d 1, 99 S. Ct. 802 (1979) stated the question is whether state law "conflicts with the express terms of federal law and whether its consequences sufficiently injure the objectives of the federal program to require nonrecognition." There is nothing in MCCARTY to suggest the particular federal preemption of state community property laws by federal military retirement statutes announced in that case was prefigured in previous cases.
"to accomplish two major goals: to provide for the retired service member, and to meet the personnel management needs of the active military forces.
MCCARTY, at 232-33. As to the first goal, these are unappealed orders. If either plaintiff had believed he was not properly provided for and that the property disposition was not "just and equitable", he could have appealed. Neither chose to do so. They cannot now claim otherwise. The second congressional goal of personnel management of the active forces is not affected. Past actions which do not apply to future retirees cannot serve as a negative influence on "enlistment and re-enlistment, to create an orderly career path, and to ensure 'youthful and vigorous' military forces." (Footnote omitted.) MCCARTY, at 234. Only future attempts to divide military retired pay would have any effect on this goal and these, of course, have been forbidden.
" While review of the first two factors identified in HUSON'S discussion of retroactivity does not indicate MCCARTY SHOULD be accorded retroactive effect, examination of the third factor - the potential for injustice and hardship convinces us the Court's decision SHOULD NOT be applied to judgments which were final before MCCARTY was filed.
In perhaps no other area of law is the need for stability and finality greater than marriage and family law. Without guessing as to how our society may structure future social relationships (cf. MARVIN v. MARVIN (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106), at this stage of our societal development, marital dissolution is almost by definition a mentally, emotionally, and often physically disruptive experience for the parties involved. Divorce inevitably requires old plans be abandoned, new plans made, and perceptions altered to conform to a changed reality. To permit and in fact encourage the relitigation of property interests long after the issues were supposedly settled would merely serve to reopen old wounds and create new ones. There is no guarantee that the non-service member spouse would have assets sufficient to reimburse the service member for that portion of the pension rights which had previously been an awarded share of community property. Substantial hardship would result in cases where the non-member relied on the property settlement in converting his or her share into non-liquid assets.
Moreover, a reallocation of property interests would likely constitute sufficient "changed circumstances" to trigger a second round of relitigation involving spousal support awards. (See generally, IN RE MARRIAGE OF KUPPINGER (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 628, 633, 120 Cal.Rptr. 654; VERNER v. VERNER (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 718, 727, 143 Cal.Rptr. 826; but cf. IN RE MARRIAGE OF COBB (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 855, 860-861, 137 Cal.Rptr. 670.) We also note the immense burden on the administration of justice in our civil courts were such relitigation permitted.
We hold MCCARTY does not apply retroactively to the property settlements in these cases. In both cases the unappealed property settlements remain in force and the trial court is affirmed. The request by defendant Wonders for attorney fees is remanded to the trial court.
CONCURRING JUDGES: Brachtenbach, C.J., and Rosellini, Stafford, Utter, Williams, Dore, Dimmick, and Pearson, JJ., concur.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.