ILNews

COA rules on military benefits to former spouses

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Ruling on the issue for the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals has held that a military spouse may not, by a post-decree waiver of retirement pay in favor of disability benefits or combat-related special compensation, unilaterally and voluntarily reduce the benefits awarded to the former spouse in a dissolution decree.

The issue arose in Victor J. Bandini v. JoAnn M. Bandini,
No. 49A04-1001-DR-26, in which Victor Bandini, who served in the military for more than 20 years, challenged whether the trial court properly concluded that the parties’ settlement agreement, incorporated into the dissolution decree, entitles JoAnn Bandini to 50 percent of his gross military retirement pay, including amounts he waived in order to receive Veterans Administration disability benefits and Combat-Related Special Compensation, which isn’t considered retirement pay.

As a part of their agreement, JoAnn was entitled to half of Victor’s military retirement/pension plan, including survivor benefits. She began receiving her half of his gross benefits, minus the amounts of disability benefits and survivor benefit premiums. That amount was dramatically reduced when Victor elected to receive CRSC, which is nontaxable and not subject to the provisions of the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act. He received less in benefits each month that were able to go to his ex-wife.

JoAnn demanded payment of the difference between half of Victor’s gross retirement pay and the reduced amount she was receiving due to his taking the CRSC. The trial court found the settlement agreement entitles JoAnn to half of his gross military retirement pay, Victor was in contempt, and that he must pay part of JoAnn’s attorney’s fees.

The appellate court agreed with Victor that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay JoAnn half of his gross retirement pay, which included amounts he had waived in order to receive VA disability benefits and CRSC or deducted from gross retirement pay as survivor benefit plan costs. Citing Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989), and Griffin v. Griffin, 872 N.E.2d 653 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), the judges held Indiana trial courts lack authority to enforce “even an agreed-upon division of property insofar as it divides amounts of gross military retirement pay that were, previously to the decree, waived to receive disability benefits or elected to be deducted from gross pay as SBP costs to benefit the former spouse.”

The trial court erred because Victor’s election to receive the VA disability benefits and his survivor benefit plan annuity preceded their dissolution decree, wrote Judge Margret Robb. The issue of post-decree waivers of retirement pay wasn’t addressed in Griffin, so for the first time the Court of Appeals adopted the view that forbids a military spouse from using a post-decree waiver of retirement pay to unilaterally diminish the benefits award to the other spouse in the dissolution.

“Thus, while Husband’s election of CRSC was a right provided him by Congress, federal law did not give Husband the authority to simultaneously invoke that right and reduce the amounts received by Wife under the terms of the dissolution decree,” wrote Judge Robb. “Further, Indiana law prohibits Husband’s election of CRSC from defeating the finality of the dissolution decree and the intent of the parties’ settlement agreement incorporated therein.”

The judges remanded for entry of an order that Victor compensate JoAnn, both prospective and as to the existing arrearage, for the decrease in her share of retirement pay caused by his taking of the CRSC. They also affirmed finding him in contempt and the order he pay part of JoAnn’s attorney’s fees.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT