Court Opinion

ID: 9775453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:59:12.836505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:26.384451
License: Public Domain

RAY, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would hold that Congress has not waived the federal government’s immunity to garnishment when such actions are based on “contractual alimony” agreements.
The definition of “alimony” contained in 42 U.S.C. § 662(c)(1982) does not encompass and was never intended to encompass obligations assumed voluntarily. Although § 662(c) is arguably broad enough to cover “contractual alimony,” such obligation must be “expressly made recoverable ... pursuant to a decree, order, or judgment issued in accordance with applicable State law by a court of competent jurisdiction....” Id. The fact that the divorce decree approved and incorporated the agreement incident to divorce containing the “support of spouse” provision does not change the nature of Marvin Stubbe’s obligation. It remains a contractual obligation undertaken in a consensual agreement and not “expressly made recoverable ... pur*134suant to a decree, order, or judgment _” Id. (emphasis added).
I would therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.