Court Opinion

ID: 9729643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:45:31.684843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:00.340263
License: Public Domain

CONOVER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The statutory authority of state courts to treat federal retired or retainer pay as either the payee’s, or the payee’s and his spouse or former spouse’s, personal property as provided by state law is specifically qualified by 10 U.S.C. § 1408(e)(l)’s opening phrase “Subject to the limitations of this section,” and the identical language contained in 10 U.S.C. § 1408(d)(1). The only restriction present in the sections of 10 Ú.S.C. § 1408 quoted by the majority is the reference to spouses or former spouses not married to the payee “for a period of 10 years or more” while the payee was in federal service earning eligibility for those benefits. .
Under the majority’s construction of this statute, the spouse of such a federal payee could be awarded any part or all of such payee’s retirement or retainer pay, even though married to such payee for only a year or less, if the court order so provided and the state law authorized such an order. Also the majority’s interpretation would result in the authorization of indirect payments of such funds to such spouses when direct payments thereof are prohibited. Both federal and state law proscribe the doing of an act indirectly which cannot be done directly. I believe the majority’s construction of 10 U.S.C. § 1408 is totally unwarranted under the sections it relies upon.
I believe the intent of Congress on this point is clear: it intended no payments of federal retirement or retainer pay were to be paid either directly or indirectly to a federal payee’s spouse or former spouse unless those parties have been married for the minimum period of 10 years provided in 10 U.S.C. § 1408(d)(2).
For those reasons I would reverse and remand for further proceedings.