Opinion ID: 1747222
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the award of one-half (50 percent) of charles pierce's military pension to shirley pierce was error.

Text: Shirley's claim that she was vested with rights in Charles' military retirement pay ignores the limitations of our state laws and 10 U.S.C. § 1408, the Federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (FUSFSPA). Unfortunately, as illustrated by the passage that follows, the lower court apparently made the same mistake: The Court is of the ... opinion that Mrs. Pierce and Mr. Pierce were married to each other and living as husband and wife for in excess of 20 years while Mr. Pierce was on active duty as a member of the United States Navy. Over this 20 year period Mr. Pierce earned and became eligible for retirement from the military service while Mrs. Pierce followed him faithfully throughout the years of their marriage up to the time of their last separation. The Court is of the opinion that Mrs. Pierce should be entitled to and the Court would grant Mrs. Pierce a 50 percent interest in Mr. Pierce's military retirement pay. (emphasis added). The Federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act does not vest any rights in a spouse, nor does Mississippi law. We have previously commented on this issue, stating that: As we perceive FUSFSPA, it did not vest any rights in anyone. It merely removed a federal bar and allowed the states to treat the military retirement pensions of their domiciliaries as personal property subject to state property laws. Brown v. Brown, 574 So.2d 688, 690-91 (Miss. 1990). Mississippi law has long recognized that, incident to a divorce, the Chancery Court has authority, where the equities so suggest, to order a fair division of property accumulated through the joint contributions and efforts of the parties. Brown v. Brown, 574 So.2d 688, 690 (Miss. 1990). See Brendel v. Brendel, 566 So.2d 1269, 1273 (Miss. 1990); Jones v. Jones, 532 So.2d 574, 580-81 (Miss. 1988); Regan v. Regan, 507 So.2d 54, 56 (Miss. 1987); Watts v. Watts, 466 So.2d 889, 891 (Miss. 1985); Clark v. Clark, 293 So.2d 447, 450 (Miss. 1974). There is a distinction between alimony and retirement benefits. In Brown v. Brown, 574 So.2d 688 (Miss. 1990), this Court noted that the Federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (hereinafter FUSFSPA), allowed the states to treat the military retirement pensions of their domiciliaries as personal property subject to state property laws. Brown, 574 So.2d at 690. In reference to a spouse's equitable right to a share of the other spouse's military retirement pay, this Court reiterated that a chancery court has authority, where equity so demands, to order a fair division of property accumulated through the joint contributions and efforts of the parties. Brown, 574 So.2d at 690. See also Brendel v. Brendel, 566 So.2d 1269, 1273 (Miss. 1990); Jones v. Jones, 532 So.2d 574, 580-81 (Miss. 1988); Regan v. Regan, 507 So.2d 54, 56 (Miss. 1987); Watts v. Watts, 466 So.2d 889, 891 (Miss. 1985); Clark v. Clark, 293 So.2d 447, 459 (1974). Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So.2d at 914. The lower court in this case made adequate findings, although additional information would have proved helpful in resolving this matter. Again, we would point to the factors set forth in Ferguson v. Ferguson , as a guide for chancellors in effectuating an equitable distribution of marital property. When property is found to be jointly accumulated, the chancellor should make specific findings in support of the proportionate share awarded to the parties because, [o]ur cases hold that a spouse is not automatically entitled to an equal division of jointly-accumulated properties. Brown v. Brown, 574 So.2d 688 (Miss. 1990); Dillon v. Dillon, 498 So.2d 328, 330 (Miss. 1986); Rives v. Rives, 416 So.2d 653, 657 (Miss. 1982). Because the chancellor in the case sub judice made adequate and specific findings with regard to the equitable distribution of the military retirement fund, we affirm. JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. PRATHER, P.J., and SULLIVAN, ROBERTS and SMITH, JJ., concur. DAN M. LEE, P.J., dissents with separate written opinion joined by HAWKINS, C.J., and BANKS and McRAE, JJ. McRAE, J., dissents with separate written opinion joined by DAN M. LEE, P.J.