Opinion ID: 2268995
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether The Superior Court Erred In Handling Kathleen's Motion To Show Cause On Her Claim For Unpaid Retirement

Text: In response to Kathleen's show-cause motion, the superior court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found that Sam had not paid Kathleen her share of his military retirement in October, November, and December 2007. Sam raises two issues concerning that finding. He first argues that it was error to find that no payment was made for December, because, as a matter of federal law, the January 2, 2008 payment of Sam's military retirement was for December. [49] If, as Sam implies, the superior court based its finding on an interpretation of federal statutes, we would review the interpretation ruling applying our independent judgment. [50] But the order dividing Sam's retirement entitled Kathleen to a payment every month following the divorce. [51] Kathleen's motion did not seek compensation she should have received for Decemberrather, it sought the payment she should have received in December. Therefore, whether federal statutes established that the military disbursed payments for a month at the beginning of the next monthand thus, whether the payment Kathleen received in early January was for Decemberwas irrelevant if she received no payment during December. We consequently review for clear error the factual finding that Kathleen was not paid in December. [52] The evidence supported that finding. Sam's December 2007 bank statement showed that he received in that month a $3,561.90 payment from the DFASabout twice what he would have received had Kathleen's portion been deducted. The bank statement did not show that he paid Kathleen anything that month. There was some contrary evidence: a December DFAS statement indicated that the spousal deduction had been made, and a DFAS letter stated that direct payments to [Sam's] former spouse should tentatively commence December 2007. But the superior court could permissibly resolve in Kathleen's favor any factual conflict between those exhibits and the evidence Kathleen was not paid in December. The finding was consequently not clearly erroneous. Sam next argues that it was error not to offset the retirement payments he owed Kathleen against the amount he was awarded on remand. [53] We read Sam's brief as contending that his proposed offset would have established that Kathleen was not the prevailing party, and was therefore not entitled to Rule 82 fees on her motion to show cause. [54] He states: Kathleen . . . was not entitled to actual attorney[']s fees on an amount of money she would have owed to [Sam] as a set off for [the] amount he owed her. [55] Sam's brief does not explain how he raised this argument in the superior court. The record, including superior court filings not contained in Sam's excerpt (such as the motion and opposition papers relating to Kathleen's second motion for an award of actual fees), persuades us that Sam did not preserve this issue below. We therefore review it only for plain error. [56] Sam's cursory briefing on the point does not convince us that Sam was legally entitled to a set-off that would have foreclosed awarding Kathleen attorney's fees on her show-cause motion. Sam cites no relevant authority to support his claim of error. And, as the superior court later noted when it denied Sam's own fees motion, Sam did not receive an award on remand; there was simply a correction in the property division. Furthermore, the correction was largely ministerial, and the dispute on remand about the truck's value was highly circumscribed. The error and its correction concerned pre-trial events and pleadings, the property division, and findings and conclusions entered when trial ended. In comparison, Kathleen's motion to show cause was occasioned by Sam's post-divorce failure to pay her half of his retirement. We are reluctant to do anything to encourage domestic support obligors to engage in self-help by assuming that their failures to comply with the judgment will eventually be offset by correction of unrelated errors. And we are certainly unconvinced by the briefing before us that it was plain error to award Kathleen Rule 82(b) fees on her successful motion to show cause.