Opinion ID: 2581730
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Military Retirement: the QDRO and the Insurance

Text: Avis argues that the superior court abused its discretion by failing to enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to protect her interest in Lindsay's retirement benefits. The superior court orally recognized at the hearing that a direct order would be necessary to guarantee that Avis received her share of Lindsay's retirement when the military began to pay Lindsay; Lindsay's attorney represented to the court that he was familiar with such orders and would be doing the paperwork anyway, implying that he would prepare and submit the necessary order for consideration by the court. The written findings and conclusions contain no provision guaranteeing that Avis will receive her share of the retirement payments and the record contains no QDRO. We have held that [t]rial courts have discretion to distribute retirement benefits to a non-employee spouse through either a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) or through a lump sum payout. [22] The superior court orally opted for entry of a direct order, which we take to be a QDRO. This was an appropriate choice. But it was error to fail to enter the order required to protect Avis's interests and we must remand for entry of the necessary order. Avis also argues that it was an abuse of discretion not to require Lindsay to insure his military retirement account. We agree. We held in Zito v. Zito [23] that an agreement for equitable division of retirement benefits earned during marriage presumptively encompasses survivor benefits. [24] We remanded with instructions to amend the QDRO to provide for a survivor benefits clause to ensure that the ex-wife be treated as a surviving spouse should her former husband predecease her. [25] Here, Avis either needs life insurance to protect her interest in Lindsay's military retirement or a clause in the QDRO that will require the Air Force to treat her as a surviving spouse if Lindsay predeceases her. On remand, the superior court should ensure that Avis's interest is protected appropriately.