Court Opinion

ID: 9646815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:12:02.342237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:42.169339
License: Public Domain

CADENA, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
The gratuitous1 questioning of the soundness of the opinion of Justice Clark, speaking for the majority of the panel in Ex parte Buckhanan, 626 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.App.—San Antonio, 1981), is somewhat surprising. The reliance on Erspan v. Badgett, 659 F.2d 26 (5th Cir.1981), without mention of the decision by the Texas Supreme Court in Ex parte Johnson, 591 S.W.2d 453 (1979) is difficult to understand. Johnson held that a 1976 divorce decree of a Texas court could not be enforced by contempt proceedings insofar as the decree required a service man to pay one-half of the money received by him from the Veteran’s Administration Retirement Fund, in view of the United States Supreme Court decision of Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 99 S.Ct. 802, 59 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979). The Court interpreted Hisquierdo as requiring the holding that Retirement Fund payments were not subject to division by a state court upon divorce. Ex parte Johnson, 591 S.W.2d, at 456. See also Ex parte Pummill, 606 S.W.2d 707 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth, 1980, no writ). In view of the reliance Buckhanan places on Johnson and Pummill, it would be reasonable to expect a discussion of those two cases in the majority opinion in this case. Such a discussion, however, is lacking.
Johnson stands for the rule that when a state court’s power to treat disability retirement benefits as community property is preempted, a final state decision attempting to divide such benefits cannot be given res judicata effect. McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981), makes it clear that state courts have no power to limit the right of a service man to receive nondisability military retirement benefits and that under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, state courts are precluded from dividing military nondisability retirement pay upon divorce. McCarty effectively forecloses the possibility of not applying the rule of Johnson to the nondisability retirement benefits involved in this case.
The case now before us differs from McCarty and Buckhanan in that the portion of the divorce decree partitioning the retirement pay is based upon an agreement between relator and his ex-spouse which the divorce court made a part of its decree. The fact that the divorce decree approves, refers to, and incorporates the property settlement agreement is irrelevant. Ridgway *850v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46, 102 S.Ct. 49, 70 L.Ed.2d 39 (1981), involved a state divorce decree requiring the service man to keep certain policies issued under the Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance Act in force for the benefit of his children, rather than an attempt by a state court to treat nondisability retirement pension benefits as community property. In Ridgway, the United States Supreme Court held that federal statutes dealing with benefits for military personnel must be given their preemptive effect despite contrary provisions of property settlement agreements, since there is nothing to indicate that Congress, in enacting the preemptive statutes, intended to exempt claims based on property settlement agreements from the rule announced in McCarty.
Based on Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S., at 61, 102 S.Ct., at 58, reasoning of the Supreme Court in Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 99 S.Ct. 802, 59 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979), McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981), and Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46, 102 S.Ct. 49, 70 L.Ed.2d 39, it is apparent that the various federal programs designed for the benefit and protection of the military are to be administered in a manner that insures that the benefits will be enjoyed solely by the person in the military service, free from control by state courts in divorce proceedings. As the Supreme Court pointed out in Ridgway: “The same approach has been followed in ... Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, ... and McCarty v. McCarty, ...” 454 U.S. at 55, 102 S.Ct., at 55.
The majority opinion in the case before us relies principally on the theory that because of the property settlement agreement in this case, relator created a trust in favor of his former wife, with himself as trustee. In Ridgway, the Supreme Court suggests that the preemption doctrine might not apply in cases involving fraud or breach of trust. See Yiatchos v. Yiatchos, 376 U.S. 306, 309, 84 S.Ct. 742, 744, 11 L.Ed.2d 724 (1964). The Court, however, indicates that the possible “fraud or breach of trust amounting to fraud” exception is limited to situations where a person attempts to deprive his spouse of property rights that are vested in the spouse under state law. Ridgway, 454 U.S., at 58-59, 102 S.Ct., at 57.2 In the instant case, the property settlement agreement is not the vehicle by which relator has acquired legal title to the pension benefits; legal title to such benefits was vested in him by federal statute. The situation before us, then, does not come within the fraud or breach of trust exception to the rule of preemption.
According to the majority, the trial court has the power to hold relator in contempt of court under Ex parte Preston, 162 Tex. 379, 347 S.W.2d 938. The majority opinion cites Ex parte Gorena, 595 S.W.2d 84 (Tex.1979) as additional authority. The holding in Ex parte Preston, supra, is inapplicable because the property involved in that case was unquestionably the community property of the parties. Ex parte Gorena, supra, has no precedental weight because it was decided prior to the McCarty decision.
In re Cobble, 592 S.W.2d 46 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1979, no writ), is analogous to the case now before us. Cobble held that a divorce decree incorporating the agreement of the parties concerning child support was enforceable by contempt only to the extent that the support provisions of the decree were authorized by the child support statute. The court held that the portion of the decree which went beyond that which the court was authorized by law to order would be enforceable only by resort to the ordinary processes of law. In re Cobble, 592 S.W.2d, at 49. Cobble supports the conclusion that the decree in the case before us, insofar as it attempts to divest relator of his rights under the military retirement *851statutes, cannot be enforced by contempt.3 Ex parte Hatch, 410 S.W.2d 773 (Tex.1967), furnishes strong support for the conclusion reached in Cobble.
I would hold that the facts of this case present no reason for refusing to apply the preemption doctrine and that relator is entitled to be discharged from custody.
Before the court en banc.

. Neither party in this case challenges the Buckhanan holding.

. In his dissenting opinion, Mr. Justice Powell disagrees with the holding of the majority that the fraud and breach of trust exception applies only in cases involving “a particular type of fraudulent behavior: attempts to divest the wife of any interest in her own property.” Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S., at 68, 102 S.Ct., at 62.

. The question whether the agreement between relator and his ex-wife can be enforced by resort to other remedies is not before us in this case.