Military Pension Included By Plain Language in Divorce Settlement

Tennessee case summary on military pension dispute after divorce settlement.

Kathlene Denise Roberts v. Willie Dino Roberts, Jr.

The wife filed for divorce in 2012 in Montgomery County, Tennessee, and asked the court to enforce a settlement agreement executed in 2008.  The agreement provided that the wife would be entitled to 50% of the husband’s disposable military retirement pay.  The husband filed an answer arguing that the agreement should not be enforced due to changed circumstances in the four years.  They ultimately agreed to a new marital termination agreement that incorporated much of the 2008 agreement.  Among other things, the percentage was reduced to 45%.

In 2016, the wife filed a motion for contempt for alleged failure to pay the military retirement pay starting in 2016.  The trial court found the husband in contempt, and found an arrearage of over $15,000 plus attorney fees.

The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  He argued that the obligation to pay did not mature until 2015, when he officially retired from the military, rather than in 2012 at the time of the divorce.  Prior to 2015, the husband was receiving a temporary disabled retirement.

The Court of Appeals pointed out that this was essentially a contract case, and the ultimate goal was to ascertain the parties’ intent when the executed the marital termination agreement.  The husband cited some cases which the appellate court found to be not on point.  Instead, the court zeroed in on the language of the agreement, which it noted the husband had not discussed in his brief.  The agreement included “all payments” under certain federal statutes, and the appeals court noted that the disability pay was covered by that language.  The agreement also stated that the husband would begin the payments on a certain date in 2012, which was contrary to the argument that the payments wouldn’t be made until years later.

The husband also argued that federal preemption might apply, but the appeals court found that the husband had not properly raised this issue.

After dismissing all of the husband’s arguments, the Court of Appeals once again concluded that the plain language of the marital termination agreement called for the benefits to be paid starting in 2012.

Finally, the wife requested her attorney fees on appeal, and the appeals court concluded that the language of the marital termination agreement also made clear that the husband had to pay these fees.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed and remanded the case for collection of the attorney fees.

No. M2017-00479-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2018).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Tennessee Divorce Law on Retirement.