Court Opinion

ID: 9951536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-18 14:01:13.256447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:41:27.005005
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1881     Document: 36   Page: 1    Filed: 03/18/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                ROSE ANN KIMBLE-DAVIS,
                       Petitioner

                            v.

      OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                        2023-1881
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. PH-0831-16-0365-I-1.
                 ______________________

                  Decided: March 18, 2024
                  ______________________

    ROSE ANN KIMBLE-DAVIS, Reading, PA, pro se.

     IOANA C. MEYER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.
 BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, CORINNE ANNE NIOSI.
                  ______________________

     Before PROST, BRYSON, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
Case: 23-1881    Document: 36     Page: 2   Filed: 03/18/2024

 2                                             DAVIS v. OPM

      Rose Kimble-Davis, the ex-wife of Harvey Kimble, a de-
 ceased federal employee, appeals the decision of the Merit
 Systems Protections Board (the “Board”) finding her not
 entitled to certain retirement benefits. Because substan-
 tial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Ms. Kimble-
 Davis did not establish she is entitled to the benefits, we
 affirm.
                              I
     Ms. Kimble-Davis and Mr. Kimble married in 1979.
 Mr. Kimble worked for the United States Postal Service
 from March 1983 until January 2014, when he passed
 away. On June 30, 2006, Ms. Kimble-Davis and Mr. Kim-
 ble entered into a post-nuptial agreement, and on Septem-
 ber 20, 2007 they divorced. Their agreement provided that
 both waived any right to each other’s pension or retirement
 plans. When Mr. Kimble died, Doris Kimble, his daughter,
 applied for, and received, Mr. Kimble’s lump-sum death
 benefits under 5 U.S.C. §§ 8342(b)-(d). See Rose Ann Kim-
 ble-Davis v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. PH-0831-16-0365-I-1,
 2017 WL 2936603, at *2 (M.S.P.B. July 5, 2017) (“Deci-
 sion”). 1
      Ms. Kimble-Davis also filed an application for death
 benefits, in which she stated she “may be listed as a bene-
 ficiary for benefits and/or a beneficiary by operation of
 law.” S.A. 1. 2 The Office of Personnel Management
 (“OPM”) denied her application because the Kimbles’ di-
 vorce agreement did not provide for survivor benefits.
 Ms. Kimble-Davis requested reconsideration on the
 grounds that the divorce decree was not valid and,

     1  Citations to page numbers in the Decision corre-
 spond to the page numbers of the copy of Decision in
 Ms. Kimble-Davis’ informal appendix.
    2   References to the S.A. refer to government’s sup-
 plemental appendix.
Case: 23-1881    Document: 36      Page: 3    Filed: 03/18/2024

 DAVIS v. OPM                                               3

 therefore, she was still married to Mr. Kimble. OPM de-
 termined the divorce decree was still in effect, according to
 applicable state law, and that Ms. Kimble-Davis had not
 shown she was entitled to former spouse survivor benefits.
 OPM also pointed to the post-nuptial agreement, which
 provided that each party released its claim to the other
 party’s pension.
     Ms. Kimble-Davis appealed OPM’s decision to the
 Board, arguing again that her divorce was not valid. She
 also argued that she had not been mentally competent
 when she signed the post-nuptial agreement and further
 speculated that Mr. Kimble had likely designated her as a
 beneficiary in documents held by OPM.
     The Board held that Ms. Kimble-Davis had not estab-
 lished she was entitled to a former spouse survivor annu-
 ity. First, the Board found there was no evidence that Mr.
 Kimble had elected any survivor annuity – because he had
 not applied for retirement – and there were no documents
 indicating he had otherwise elected a survivor annuity.
 Second, the Board determined that even if there had been
 a pre-divorce election, the post-nuptial agreement and di-
 vorce decree expressly provided that Ms. Kimble-Davis re-
 leased all claims to Mr. Kimble’s pension and retirement
 plans. Third, the Board concluded that it could not set
 aside the state court’s divorce decree as that matter was
 governed by state law and, hence, outside the scope of the
 Board’s authority.
     Ms. Kimble-Davis filed a petition for review by the full
 Board. The Board issued a final decision on March 30,
 2023, finding that she “has not established any basis under
 [5 C.F.R. § 1201.115] for granting the petition for review.”
 Kimble-Davis v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. PH-0831-16-0365-
 I-1, 2023 WL 2715688, at *1 (M.S.P.B. Mar. 30, 2023).
 Ms. Kimble-Davis then timely appealed. We have jurisdic-
 tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
Case: 23-1881     Document: 36      Page: 4   Filed: 03/18/2024

 4                                                DAVIS v. OPM

                               II
     “We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it was ar-
 bitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
 in accordance with law; obtained without procedures re-
 quired by law, rule or regulation; or unsupported by sub-
 stantial evidence.” Hernandez v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 450
 F.3d 1332, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c).
     When a federal employee eligible for retirement dies
 while still employed, the late employee’s former spouse is
 eligible for a survivor annuity if (a) the employee elected
 one pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8339(j)(3) within two years of
 the dissolution of the marriage, or (b) if a court order en-
 tered in the context of a divorce – a divorce decree, property
 settlement agreement, or other – makes specific reference
 to such benefits, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 8341(d)(2)(B), (h)(1). See
 also 5 C.F.R. § 838.912(a); Dachniwskyj v. Off. of Pers.
 Mgmt., 713 F.3d 99, 102 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Vaccaro v. Off. of
 Pers. Mgmt., 262 F.3d 1280, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “Divorce
 generally terminates a prior election of spousal survivor
 benefits.” Dachniwskyj, 713 F.3d at 102 (citing 5 U.S.C.
 § 8339(j)(5)(A)(ii)). The election of a former spouse survivor
 annuity under 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(1) must be “expressly
 provided for” in the court order entered as part of the di-
 vorce. Downing v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 619 F.3d 1374, 1377
 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
     Ms. Kimble-Davis argues on appeal that OPM’s publi-
 cations indicate that a divorce does not affect a prior desig-
 nation of a beneficiary for retirement lump sum benefits,
 and further that no one has shown she was not a desig-
 nated beneficiary. She relies in part on an OPM publica-
 tion stating “[a] divorce does not affect a designation of
 beneficiary that was filed at some earlier time.” Informal
 Br. at 6; id. at Exhibit A, p. 9. She also contends that OPM
 treated her case as a surviving spouse case, indicating that
 she was, in fact, a designated beneficiary.
Case: 23-1881    Document: 36      Page: 5    Filed: 03/18/2024

 DAVIS v. OPM                                               5

      The Board’s contrary findings, that Ms. Kimble-Davis
 failed to demonstrate that Mr. Kimble ever designated her
 as a beneficiary or that she is a surviving spouse, is sup-
 ported by substantial evidence. As the Board found, there
 is “no indication in this record that Mr. Kimble made any
 written election to provide the appellant with a survivor
 annuity during their marriage.” Decision, at *4. We reject
 Ms. Kimble-Davis’ suggestion that OPM was required to
 prove she was not Mr. Kimble’s beneficiary. Instead, in an
 action for a survivor annuity, the “burden of proving enti-
 tlement [is] on the applicant for benefits.” Cheeseman
 v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 791 F.2d 138, 141 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
 see also Harris v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 142 F.3d 1463,
 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The petitioner bears the burden of
 establishing error in the Board’s decision.”). Ms. Kimble-
 Davis has at no point identified any evidence demonstrat-
 ing that she had been designated Mr. Kimble’s benefi-
 ciary. 3 Instead, she relies entirely on her status as his
 former spouse, which is insufficient.
     Moreover, even if Mr. Kimble had elected a survivor
 annuity prior to the divorce, that election would have been
 terminated by his failure to expressly provide for it in a
 court order as part of the divorce. See Warren v. Off. of
 Pers. Mgmt., 407 F.3d 1309, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under
 the applicable statutory provisions, without a specific elec-
 tion after dissolution of a marriage, a former spouse is not
 entitled to a survivor annuity except to the extent provided
 for in a specific court order entered as part of a divorce

     3    For this reason, and also because she did not raise
 the issue with OPM or the Board, the OPM publications do
 not provide Ms. Kimble-Davis a basis for relief. See Synan
 v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 765 F.2d 1099, 1101 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
 (“Petitioner cannot raise before this court an issue which
 could have been raised below but which was not.”).
Case: 23-1881    Document: 36      Page: 6   Filed: 03/18/2024

 6                                              DAVIS v. OPM

 proceeding. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 8339(j)(5)(A)(ii), 8341(h). The
 record contains no evidence of such an order.
     Finally, while Ms. Kimble-Davis does not before us
 press her contention that her divorce decree is invalid, she
 offers a related, new argument: because OPM treated this
 dispute as a surviving spouse case, she should be consid-
 ered a surviving spouse. Because this argument was not
 made to the Board, it is forfeited. See Wallace v. Dep’t of
 Air Force, 879 F.2d 829, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Regardless,
 even if OPM had treated this as a surviving spouse case,
 that mistake would not make up for the absence of a di-
 vorce decree providing for a survivor annuity. See Off. of
 Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 416-17, 419-20
 (1990) (holding that erroneous government advice does not
 trump statutory language).
                             III
    We have considered Ms. Kimble-Davis’ other argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons stated
 above, we affirm the Board’s decision.
                        AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.