Toolsview all

David Stanley Ford

Oklahoma veterans fight for change in divorce law
Bill would treat retirement funds as alimony instead of property

BY JULIE BISBEE    Comments Comment on this article85
Published: March 29, 2009

Retired U.S. Navy flight engineer Frank Kurland is trying to get state courts to change how military retirement pay is viewed in divorce proceedings.

Advertisement

The 47-year-old Midwest City man and several retired service members are meeting with veterans groups across Oklahoma to discuss House Bill 1053.

Oklahoma is home to 338,000 retired service members, according to Veterans Affairs Department figures.

There are 21,000 active-duty members in the state, Defense Department figures show.

If this bill becomes law, Oklahoma will be the first state to require the courts to view military retirement pay differently.

When Kurland ended his 17-year marriage after retiring from the military, he was surprised to learn his ex-wife was entitled to a percentage of his military retirement pay, even if she remarried.

‘Serious change’
Under HB 1053, the payments would be viewed as alimony, not property, and alimony ends when the recipient remarries. The bill, filed by Rep. Gary Banz, R-Midwest City, passed the House and was approved by the Senate Judiciary committee last week.

"There is support to move this bill through the process,” said Sen. Patrick Anderson, R-Enid, who carried the measure in the Senate.

"But it’s a serious change and it needs to be looked at very carefully.”

Last session, Banz was successful in getting through language that would require judges in divorce proceedings to consider how long a spouse was married to a retired military member and what the service member’s pay grade was at the time of the marriage before awarding a percentage of retirement pay.

That change was signed into law by Gov. Brad Henry and takes effect July 1.

Before this provision was put into place, a spouse that had been married to an enlisted person for a short time early in a service member’s career would be entitled to a portion of the retirement pay.

Different status seen
The bill’s opponents say it makes major changes to state divorce laws and gives special preference to veterans. They also say the plan could add to Oklahoma’s high divorce rate.

Sen. Charlie Laster, D-Shawnee, a family law attorney, voted against the legislation when it was heard in committee.

"This is a huge change in Oklahoma laws,” Laster said. "This would give military members a distinct different status in divorce law. I’m not sure that’s good for public policy.”

Supporters of the change argue that military retirement pay comes with requirements and stipulations that a traditional pension doesn’t carry.

"We’re just trying to even the playing field,” Kurland said. "We don’t want to go after the former spouses, but we want to give the Oklahoma courts something to consider and at least look at.”

Toolsview all

David Stanley Ford





Need Affordable Health Care?
Get Affordable Health Insurance Quotes Online - Plans from $30 / Month
USInsuranceOnline.com

Obama Gives $31 Billion for Student Aid
Get Your Degree Now. Financial Aid & Scholarships are available.
www.ClassesUSA.com


Leave a Comment

Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online

Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.


Log in below or sign up (it's free).





Thank you Karen for your post. Please spread the word to all the troops at Altus to contact their state elected Representitives and Senators to pass HB 1053. This bill will finally address the inequities that have plaqued veterans for almost 3 decades by state courts. Thank you again for supporting veterans rights and encourage others to join the fight in supporting HB 1053.
Frank, Midwest City - Jun 13, 2009 at 9:23 am
Yes, My husbands ex-wife also receives 49% of his retirement and is now remarried, plus he still pays her child support, plus was left with all her credit card debt. She was the one having an affair on him at the time of divorice. I really hope this law gets changed he served his counrty 20 years. He SHOULD NOT have to keep paying her after she got remarried. Thank you to the vets who is fighting for this change.
Karen, Altus - Jun 9, 2009 at 7:32 am
I have personally known two females (years ago) that got married to two different NAVY men and then divorced each of the men (one after 7 years the other 9 years)
BOTH went after the SERVICE MEMBERS retirement and VA DISABLITY after they retired and received appox (42% and 46%) and will get it for LIFE. One is working on her third military husband.
THIS HAS GOT TO STOP!!!
I am currently disabled and at times can barely walk due to injuries I received while on active duty, and on top of that I am recovering from cancer.
I can’t work for some countries or my retirement stops, I am subject to recall to active duty, I am subject to Military Laws and regulations, Federal employees are not subject to any of these laws.
SPOUSES ARE NOT!
If I where to go to jail my retirement stops because I no longer elegable for retirement (they check every year). If my ex wife where to go to jail she would still collect.
William, Del City - May 21, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Why are the opponents of HB 1053 afraid to identify themselves on this blog? This and other blogs on the subject are filled with random, rambling unsigned attacks on the bill. If you are so sure of your "facts" you should not be afraid to attach your name and home town to your entries.
P.S. to the unknown blogger of April 3 @ 1:33 P.M. Research the law - the Uniformed Spouses Protection Act of 1982 WAS applied retroactively. After it was passed the Act was dated retroactively to ONE DAY prior to the USSC McCarty vs McCarty ruling.
Michael, Deer Lodge - Apr 28, 2009 at 11:45 am
Monique - Please visit www.ulsg.org and www.americanretirees.org and see why divorced military retirees are fighting this covertly crafted and Unconstitutional - Ex Post Facto - "albatross". You might also consider purchasing the book advertised on the www.americanretirees.org homepage - it's full of sound, true facts !
Bob, Rome - Apr 28, 2009 at 8:14 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Bob
Re; "Concerned, Central OK, 3/28/09 at 2:16 PM" - Please understand the military retired pay is NOT, repeat, NOT a "pension" - Neither the military member nor the Gov't pay into a "fund" with the members name on it during the member's term(s) of service. Miltary retired pay has many conditions attached to it that former spouses don't have these same restrictions. If a member serves 19 years, 11 months and 29 days - there is NO, repeat - NO military retired pay entitlement ! One MUST serve at LEAST 20 years and one day to be retired pay eligible. There is an excellent explanation hotlink at www.ulsg.org available on the home page showing the many conditions of military retired PAY.
Bob, Rome - Apr 28, 2009 at 7:39 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Bob
People,

PLEASE read up on the Uniformed Forces Former Spouse Protection Act of 1982 BEFORE you sound off using inaccurate "facts". Simply go to www.ulsg.org and read the section on "Military Pay Myths". I an SO TIRED of "experts" quoting the "10-Year-Rule" inaccurately. FOR THE RECORD: under the provisions of the USFSPA, and military marriage must last as short as ONE DAY for the former spouse to qualify for lifetime payments. The ten year rule only allows DFAS to make direct payment to the former spouse. Payment in any marriage lasting one day to 9 years, 364 days requires that the full retention payment must be paid to the retired military member first - it is up to the retiree to make the division and send the adjudicated payment to the ex.

Michael, Deer Lodge - Apr 28, 2009 at 1:21 am
Anonymous in Oklahoma City and PayingAttention in Tulsa – You really don’t pay attention.

You believe that current Oklahoma Law provides equal treatment of all professions and all former spouses of any profession in regard to property division in a divorce. Current Oklahoma Law states the former spouse” …shall have retrospective and prospective application with regards to modifications for the purpose of obtaining support or payments pertaining to a division of property on divorce decrees which become final after June 26, 1981.” This means former spouses can go back to June 27, 1981 and claim RETROACTIVE payment of a retired military veteran’s MRP. This can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars and would force the veteran into bankruptcy. It seems to me this is NOT equal treatment but rather is grossly unequal and discriminatory treatment of military members in Oklahoma divorce courts. HB 1053 will change Oklahoma Law to provide equal treatment for military members in Oklahoma divorce courts and eliminate the unequal treatment they currently receive. HB 1053 will NOT wind back the clock to 1981; current Oklahoma Law does that for the former spouse. HB 1053 will advance the clock to the present.

Every state does NOT divide military pensions with former spouses when the marriage has lasted 10 years or more. The “10 year rule” only applies to direct payments to the former spouse by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). The former spouse becomes eligible for military retirement/retainer pay (MRP) which has yet to be earned immediately upon marriage providing the military member serves 20 or more years of creditable service and is transferred into a Retired / Reserve status for Life. However, for there to be direct payments made by DFAS, there must be a 10 year overlap between the marriage and the military service. And why is the “10 year rule” relevant to HB 1053? There is NO mention of the “10 year rule” in Oklahoma statutes.

John, Tulsa - Apr 12, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore John
Debbie:
The point about car salesmen and auto mechanics was that we can't have different legislation for every different occupation. No offense was intended and no comparison to veterans was intended. Pick any occupation: doctors, police officers, fire fighters.... they all and all other professions in Oklahoma divide their pensions with spouses in divorces, just as has occurred for military pensions for the last 27 years in Oklahoma and across the country. Each state should have 1 practice or law for pension division, not a different practice or law for every different occupation. That's the point I was making. And that is how a state ensures equal treatment under the law for all the residents of a state.

Re: McCarty v McCarty of 1981, that case became irrelevant when the U.S. Congress passed the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA) of 1982 which declared military retirement pay was retirement pay and could be divisible with former spouses at the state level. Then at the state level for the last 27 years, every state has chosen to divide military pensions with former spouses when the marriage lasted 10 years or more.

As a result of the USFSPA of 1982, there is equal treatment of all professions and all former spouses of any profession receive the same rights of property division. And this is a beautiful thing.... equal treatment of all persons is always a good thing. That HB 1053 aims to wind back the clock to 1981 and revert to preferential treatment for service members and to lesser family law rights for former military spouses is anything but progress. It is a regression to darker days that are far in the past. Equal treatment of all persons is always the right way to go.
- Apr 10, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
Come on folks. First of all, military retirement/retain pay is nothing similiar to a civilian pension. Apparently, you don't understand that active duty military members DO NOT contribute one penny to their retirement/retainer pay. Check out McCarty vs McCarty 1981 case and get educated a little more. Military retainer/retirement pay does not even remotely have the concept of community property. Apparently the blogs from NV is right on track. Seems like the only people who are opposing this bill is the former spouses and attorneys who have something in monetary value to loose. I find it very offensive that you would reference our military members as being car salesman. These folks, both MALE AND FEMALE are fighting for the rights that you and I take for granted each day. As far as Rep Banz and Sen Anderson supporting the bill? It's about time that our State Government stands up for the rights of our military members. Our military members are being treated unfairly througout the the divorce courts. They are not being equitable in any shape and form and their interpreation of the USFSPA is incorrect. The bill of rights guarantees all American Citizens to peacefully assemble to petition the Government for redress of grievances. This is not the forum to litigate, but to provide solid factual information regarding this legislation. Several have mistated the true intent of HB 1053 by paraphrasing certain words which is not in the true spirit or intent of the bill, which is equitable for both parties. Next time you see a Veteran, tell them thank you and walk away.
Debbie, Oklahoma City - Apr 10, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Anonymous:
How can you be so wrong and take up so much space proving it...

Laws ARE RETROSPECTIVE. Some of the most important pieces of legislation are often retrospective...you are a fool. Ever heard of Affirmative Action???

Ex post facto PENAL laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive criminal legislation, though some have suggested that judge-made law is retroactive as a new precedent applies to events that occurred prior to the judicial decision.

Divorce is CIVIL Law...duhhh!!!
Ricky, Midwest City - Apr 10, 2009 at 1:54 pm
It is well known by legal scholars that one of the most important principles of the notion of the “the rule of law” is that: laws should be “prospective” rather than “retrospective.”

How could anyone who respects the notion of “the rule of law” support a bill like OK HB 1053 that proposes that its numerous radical provisions be retroactive to 1981? Outrageous! Offends the rule of law……
- Apr 10, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
The legislative battle over whether military retirement is: a) retirement pay; or b) reduced compensation for reduced services has been battled out in the U.S. Congress for almost 30 years, and that battle is over. The U.S. Congress declared in 1982 and has continued to declare over and over and over again... that military retirement pay is retirement pay, no different from any civilian pension.

Those at the national level seeking to convince the U.S. Congress otherwise have logically given up on fighting that battle with the U.S. Congress. A bill with provisions in the Banz Anderson bill could be shopped on Capitol Hill every day for 352 days. In the last 7-10 years, the result would be that not a single U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative would be able to be found the author such a bill. Why? because U.S. legislators known the history of debate on this issue and they know the debate ended in 1982 with the U.S. Congress strong declaration that military retirement pay is exactly that: it is retirement pay, no different from a civilian's retirement pay.

As a result of the U.S. Congress' unwavering 30 year position that military retirement pay is retirement pay, a new strategy has been developed to shop such a bill at the state level, ideally shop it in a state far from Washington, D.C. where a legislature might be effectively broad-sided due to lack of knowledge of the national level legislative battle over whether military retirement pay is retirement pay.

That Oklahoma was one of the first states targeted to be broad-sided with such a bill should make every one in the state wake up fast, study the legislative battle that has played out at the national level, and ask: Why and on what ideals and principles has the U.S. Congress repelled every such bill like the Banz Anderson bill at the national level for almost thirty years? Only when the answer to that question is known can the Banz Anderson bill be understood for what it is.

- Apr 10, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
It is the people in uniform who put themselves in harm's way for a nation loved beyond measure. It is those people, too, who sacrifice what is arguably the best years of their lives (from late-teen/early-twenties usually through at least age 40) in selfless service while others live in comfort and security at their expense. It is they who have served honorably for decades who then retire only to have half of their "retired pay" taken from them and given to a spouse who could be on the second marriage after divorcing that servicemember.
The alleged purpose of that law is to "protect" the former spouse. There is not now and never has been a need to protect a former spouse beyond the protection already provided in by existing divorce laws.
The concept that it is "retired" pay is FALSE. There are 4 TRUTHS (well, a lot more than that, but I'll cover only those 4).

TRUTH #1: It is "retainer" pay and contingent on the retired servicemember continuing for life to keep himself or herself available for military recall if the nation needs. It has already been argued that, if "retired" pay, the retired servicemember could continue to recieve it even if he or she renounced their citizenship and moved to another country. "NO!" said the government and the courts. If you become a citizen of any other country, your "retired" pay is stopped automatically because the government and the courts know it is "retainer" pay (even when we have long ago passed the point where we might realistically be called back into service). All of that is a moot point anyway. Those who served for decades will be the first to offer their service whatever that may be if any other nation ever tries to invade OUR NATION! We won't need to be recalled.

TRUTH #2: If (and I repeat IF) we spent decades giving up some portion of our pay to invest in a retirement program, then our spouses would have had to either make up the difference or sacrifice a better-paid life right along with us. That MIGHT make it "community property" to be divided as such. But we don't invest anything more than our blood, sweat, and tears for years and years.

TRUTH #3: The spouse is not under any such obligation to maintain U.S. citizenship in order to keep having the U.S. taxpayer pay him or her a "retirement" pay for life with having to work a day to earn it. A former spouse can marry a foreign national, move to their new spouse's country, and become a citizen of that country. If that was the servicemember, "retired" pay stops. But for the former spouse, the new marriage, the new citizenship, nor any other things he or she might do (including going to prison for a crime) will not stop them from getting their cut of the servicemember's "retired" pay.

TRUTH #4: It is possible, and fully supported by this immoral legislation that Oklahoma MUST repeal, for a servicemember to serve for decades and recieve NOTHING in the way of retirement. For a man or woman to steal half of the servicemember's retirement pay, the marriage need only last 10 years. How many young men and women in their teen years have married around the time they enter the military? How many teen marriages last a lifetime? This is a very real possibility: A young man or woman marries and spends the first 10 years of his or her military career married to someone who then leaves them for another, resulting in a divorce. One half of the person's future retirement is gone. The same person, a couple of year later, marries again. They try to make that second marriage work, but it just doesn't. Ten or 11 years later, it too ends in divorce. The other half of the person's future retirement just went away. After 25 years in service, he or she retires only to find out that there is no pension. Meanwhile, two people who never served a day in their lives each enjoy a U.S. taxpayer paid retirement. Worse, there are gold-diggers out there who marry one military servicemember, divorce him or her after 10 years, then marry another servicemember. When they divorce that second servicemember, they are entitled to a FULL retirement (one half each from each former spouse) while those two former spouse of theirs, the servicemembers, each scrape by on 1/2 half retirement.

It is an injustice and Oklahomans ought to be damned proud to be the first state to recognize it and try to make amends to those who serve and protect our way of life.

Support the passage of HB1503!
Garry, Battle Creek - Apr 9, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Ashton. You make my point exactly. Bad laws (USFPA) make for bad court decisions (Baker vs Kansas). The bill of rights guarantees American Citizens to peacefully assemble and petition the Government for a reddress of grievances. Does Rosa Parks ring a bell? This is the very reason why HB 1053 will correct these inqueities for both parties. The 10 year rule is only for DFAS to make direct payments to the former spouse not a minimum requirement for a court to award retired/retainer pay to a former spouse.Your statement is flawed regarding Congress estabishing this procedure. Courts can award any amount that they choose with regards to retainer/reitrement pay for less than 10 years of marriage and they do on a daily basis. If a service member is married less than 10 years and the courts make an award for retainer pay to the former spouse, the military service member has to pay out of pocket with an additional of Cost of Living of Allownace (COLA) increase for the remainer of his/her life regardless of remarriage or not.

VA disability is off limits by Fedearl Statute USC Title 38, but state courts are ordering service members to pay their VA disability comenspationn out of pocket to their former spouses. Bear in mind, the USFSPA DOES NOT MANDATE the division of retirement/retainer pay. However, the courts have interpeted "May" to the word "MUST" and are automatically awarding former spouses retired/retainer pay for LIFE. This is not in line with the USFPA. You are not informed as you think you are. My advice is to contact the Defense Accounting System (DFAS), US Comptroller, Department of Defense, IRS, to collaborate these facts. This is public information. Take the time to research this.

Bad information hurts good people.

And as always, Support Our Troops.
Debbie, Oklahoma City - Apr 4, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Following up on the last past, in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Barker v. Kansas took the position that military retirements are similar to other pensions and that there is no "significant difference" between military retirees and state and local government retirees in terms of calculating retirement benefits. Other federal statutes indicate that the U.S. Congress for many purposes does not consider military retirement to be :compensation for reduced current services." Lastly, states have been urged to tread with caution in this area (of viewing military retired pay as compensation for reduced current services).

As recent as 2004, a Virginia case, Adkins et al v Rumsfeld challenged the USFSPA on constitutional due process and equal treatment grounds and this case was DISMISSED.
Ashton
- Apr 4, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
Debbie:
In 1982, with the passage of the "Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act" (USFSPA), our U.S. Congress in an effort to protect military spouses, took the view that state courts can consider disposable retired pay (excluding disability retired pay) as divisible property in a divorce settlement.

The U.S. Congress also established procedures for doing so which include the requirement that the former spouse must have been married to the service member at least 10 years or more during which the member performed at least 10 years of service creditable towards retirement eligibility. I make this point because some people have posted that very brief marriages to a service member allow a claim on a service member's retirement. That is not the case.

Ashton in Sapulpa

- Apr 4, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
For the folks that still do not understand that military retainer pay/retirement pay is reduced pay for reduced services, post active duty NOT A PENSION along with other restrictions and obligations to the Federal Goverment that former spouses are not obligated to in any way,shape or form. It's a stream of income akin to alimony taxed as a wage by the IRS ect.. Why is this so difficult to understand. AND DUDE!!!! What do you stand to lose if HB 1053 passes? Sounds like to me you are an attorney who has been siphoning off the military members for years. Have you been out to Tinker AFB and spoke with military members both male and female who have been affected by the current law? Have you been to Fort Sill when soilders are coming off the plane with divorce papers being served to them? Have you visited a VA hospital and spoke with our injured and disabled Veterans and asked their opinion how HB 1053 would affect them? No, I'm sure you have not. The current price of 4100+ deaths and over 31,000 injuries from the current war on terror should jog your conscience enough to make you realize that these men and women in uniform are fighting and dying for your right to express your opinion with regard to this article. However, you need to get the facts straight and leave the personal attacks out of the argument. As a former military spouse who waived any rights to my ex husbands military retired/retainer pay for social and moral reasons, I strongly support HB 1053 in it's entirety. The bill is for all Veternas of Oklahoma and your personal attacks towards Mr. Kurland are inappropriate, unprofessional and does not relate to the bill. Could it be that you stand to lose something if HB 1053 passes? This is just another example of why attorneys should only practicie law and stay out of the legislative arena. If other retirement plans such as the Oklahoma State Public Employee Retirement Plan which allows a remarriage clause for all State Senators and Legislatures, then why shouldn't the military member be afforded the same protection? The military member's retired/retainer pay is not, and I say again, NOT a qualified pension plan. Yet, you insist that it is. Why don't you educate yourself on the true definition of military retired/retainer pay. I take that you are an educated individual, take the time to do the research. If not, try the alternative of putting on a uniform and deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhwere else in the world where American Military members answer the call of duty . But then again, you have the freedom to not do that thanks to the men and women of the Armed Forces. When you see a Veteran, tell them thank you.
Debbie, Oklahoma City - Apr 4, 2009 at 2:54 pm
This post is in reply to an “unidentified person” who posted comments on this message board today, April 4 at 12:38 PM. You seem to want to limit or eliminate my right to freedom of expression and seem to believe I shouldn’t be able to petition my elected representatives to correct a bad law; both of which are constitutionally guaranteed rights. I am hardly dominating the discussions on this blog and my writing is far from heavy- handed unless you call fact based support of my position heavy-handed. Fact based comments must intimidate you and your only response is name-calling and personal attacks. If you believe Oklahoma divorce law should not be changed, then present your arguments in a positive manner and stop the smear campaign. Supporters of HB 1053 have taken the high road and are supporting their position with facts and solid education about how current Oklahoma divorce law adversely affects Oklahoma military members and veterans.
John, Tulsa - Apr 4, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore John
Currently HB 1053 reads as follows:

"Equitable division of the military retirement pay shall include the following considerations for review by the state court in determinin classification of the pay as marital or separate property:

1. the ability of the former spouse to provide for the former spouse's own support;
2. the length of service and pay grade at the time of divorce and not at the future date of retirement;
3. the education and experience the former spouse received during the marriage;
4. any criminal activity, abuse, or non-conformance to military lifestyle of the former spouse;
5. the combat service of the military member;
6. the disability status of the military member, provided that a court shall not offset any disability income with other assets of the military member;
7. any career detriment received by the former spouse due to service of the military member.

If the above 7 "factors" are even relevant to a property division of a military pension in a divorce after a long marriage of say 20+ years, then the below should be inserted as additional "factors" which would result in this bill being more equitable. BOTH the service member and the military spouses SERVE AND MAKE SACRIFICES FOR THEIR COUNTRY when it is a 20+ year marriage.

8. the ability of the service member to provide for the service member's own support;
9. the financial support and education the service member may have received at any point in the marriage either before or after the military service that may have been paid for directly from earnings of the military spouse. (ex: one spouse works and pays all bills and the tuition of the other spouse to go to law school);
10. any criminal activity, abuse, or non-conformance to military lifestyle of the service member;
11. the service, leadership and giving of time by the military spouse to the military community, esp. in formal leadership positions on base/post;
12. the division of responsibilities and caretaking of the children of the marriage throughout the duration of the marriage;
13. the health and any disabilities of the military spouse even if not military service related

Lastly, another critical modification that needs to be worked in somewhere:

"because we are proposing that the former spouses's payments of disposable retired pay will terminate upon voluntary cohabitation or remarriage, the service member's legal entitlement to any portion of the military spouse's personal pension (should the spouse have been able to build one up) will also terminate upon the service member voluntarily cohabiting or remarrying."

HB 1053 needs to be rethought, the language in the bill needs work, and the bill is a disservice to all Oklahomans. No other state in the country has passed anything like this bill. This bill is RADICAL.
- Apr 4, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
Dude, you are dominating quite heavy handedly THE OKLAHOMAN public comments section for this news article as "John" and also dominating the TULSA WORLD public comments section for this news article as "NV." That is worthy of public comment for all readers to know that your postings appear to be more than just a reader's thoughts and ideas as a freedom of expression in a public forum.

Are you involved and a part of Kurland's legal team or just the legal team behind this special interest bill?


- Apr 4, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
This post is in reply to an “unidentified person” who posted comments on this message board today, April 4 at 1:44 AM. For the readers of this blog I believe it would be appropriate for you to at least identify your postings with a screen name. Over the past several days there have been postings by “L”, Monique and an “unidentified person” posting with no identification. All of these postings have been opposed to a “Do Pass” vote on HB 1053. From the writing style of these persons I believe they are the same person. A central point this person does not seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand is that military retirement/retainer pay (MRP) is NOT a pension. They, however, repeatedly ignore the facts that MRP is reduced, current pay for reduced services. The evidence supporting this fact has been presented numerous times in the comments on Julie Bisbee’s article. Since you firmly believe this fact is not correct I CHALLENGE you to provide evidence supporting your assertion that MRP is a pension and not pay.
Another common element of the style of these postings is they all use emotionally charged, contrived and unrealistic scenarios to support their position spiced up with personal attacks on individuals. There is very little fact and substance in the writing. This makes for pulp fiction but NOT substantial arguments. The current posting implies there should be equal compensation to the former spouse for the sacrifices of military service. While military service can be a challenge to both the military member and their spouse, no spouse has ever made the supreme sacrifice for this nation and yet they somehow feel entitled to a share of what is earned by Oklahoma military members during a lifetime spent placing themselves in harm’s way. If one follows the same line of reasoning that “unidentified person” uses in the current post, the same could be said for members of the CIA and Foreign Service both of which have remarriage clauses in their retirement plans. Every military marriage is different and the circumstances of each military divorce are different. Current Oklahoma divorce law does not acknowledge these differences and is awarding MRP to former spouses in a cookie cutter manner with no consideration given to these differences. HB 1053 mandates Oklahoma divorce courts review seven considerations when awarding MRP to a former spouse. This will make the process fair and equitable rather than the current process which discriminates against the military member. In the interest of fair and equitable treatment of Oklahoma military members the Oklahoma Senate should vote “Do Pass” on HB 1053.

John, Tulsa - Apr 4, 2009 at 11:28 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore John
According to this bill, even after a 28 year military marriage ends in divorce, the military pension division payments to the military spouse would only continue long-term or until the death of that military spouse IF that spouse commits to deliberate isolation and loneliness, or finds a partner to be financially co-dependent upon. Per this bill, the pursuit of or experience of a subsequent serious romantic relationship involving cohabitation or marriage will lead to your punishment and the State is going to take your property away! Not all of your property, just your % of the pension division from the 28+ year marriage.

(Real life scenario) That former spouse (with the service member) spent 28 years constantly uprooting and replanting the family every 3 years often times all around the world. That former spouse often was not able to attain professional seniority and build up his/her own retirement. That former spouse fulfilled 80% of the child rearing duties due to heavy business travel, TDY, and combat duty of the service member. That former spouse often contributed significantly to: formal positions in base/post community leadership and to the wholesome community-type activities on military bases/posts esp. overseas which was critical to: a) the military community, b) the well-being of military children, and c) the health/effectiveness of our service members.

For without military spouses, our service members would be quite challenged if they were all single parents and then subsequently called away from the home base/post on duty.

The whole reason military pension division occurs as it does today is because the U.S. Congress in Washington, D.C. recognized the critical roles and sacrifices of military spouses, esp. those of long military marriages of 20+ years.

Should that long marriage end after 28 years, this bill says to the military spouse:

thank you JUST A LITTLE BIT for your 28 years of sacrifice and service in different places every 3 years and often far away from your family and friends. Thank you just a little bit for your devotion and service to:

a.) to your service member spouse who relied on you like a rock esp. after combat,
b.) to your children who often relied on you as the sole parent present when the service member was on extraordinary military-related travel, TDY, reforger exercise, and combat
c) to the broader base/post military community

But since your marriage to that service member has now ended and you were married for a long 28 years, you will now get just a little bit of a thank you in the form of just a TEMPORARY PENSION DIVISION but it comes with "strings attached" which are: you are now condemned to live the rest of your life in isolation and be lonely, you can never live with a member of the opposite sex or remarry, and if you do, watch what we are gonna do to you: we are gonna punish you and immediately revoke your % of the pension division because your 28 year service and sacrifice to country and the military community didn't really mean ANYTHING to your country. Your other option for cohabitation or remarriage is to cohabit or remarry a very wealthy person or find someone to be financially dependent on because we are gonna rip from under you your % of the property division and pension from your 28+ year military marriage and service to country and to the military community.

This bill shamelessly devalues the important role played by military spouses.

What vision for base/post life is behind this bill? the following? Picture what would happen to U.S. military installations all over the country if suddenly all the military spouses just up and left leaving just service members and children, then picture the service members all sent on TDY at the same time leaving only the children left on base/post running wild.....

Anyone who knows what living on military bases or posts is like can't honestly picture the military community without military spouses on base/post can they, esp. at overseas installations? Clearly the drafter of this bill does not know what military life is like. Clearly the drafter of this bill has no idea of the enormous value and contributions made to the military community by military spouses for example in a 28 year military marriage with 30% of it spent abroad.

Both service members and military spouses serve and make sacrifices for our country! Esp. for long service to country of say 28+ years, our country should THANK THEM BOTH AND ENSURE A BASE MINIMAL FINANCIAL STABILITY TO BOTH.

That this bill in Oklahoma in 2009 so blatantly devalues the military spouse is both shocking and disturbing..... No other state in our country has crafted in ink on paper such a disturbing message to military spouses who also serve and make sacrifices for their country: Oklahoma military spouses don't mean nothing and Oklahoma don't even need them." (sarcasm of course but that is the message of this bill)

Here is to BOTH our service members and military spouses who so graciously serve and sacrifice for our country. Thank you both from the bottom of my heart. You both play EQUALLY critical roles in the defense of our country and I have seen it with my own eyes.

There has got to be a better solution than this current bill to how the State of Oklahoma handles military divorces, esp. the long ones of over 20+ years. Let's keep up the work until we get the right pension division solution. Both service members and military spouses deserve gratitude and respect from their country. They both earned it! This bill is NOT the solution.
- Apr 4, 2009 at 1:44 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
Oh and John,
I get the sense that you are likely Kurland's family law attorney handling his matter.... for some reason... ;)

- Apr 3, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
Can anyone name a national level organization that ACTIVELY AND CURRENTLY advocates and lobbies on behalf of former military spouses?

Monique
- Apr 3, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
That would be 15000 a year after taxes to split 50/50....lots of money isn't it. Public needs to understand veterans DO NOT MAKE MILLIONS ON THEIR RETIREMENTS. WWW.DFAS.MIL ARE THE PAY CHARTS
- Apr 3, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
HB 1053 - REMARRIAGE REMARRIAGE REMARRIAGE

Why should a veteran have to pay an ex spouse for the rest of their life after they HAVE REMARRIED!!! The veteran has probably remarried and would like to support THEIR OWN NEW SPOUSE. It is a wash it is even.

Why doesn't the question come up with those that do not support in regards to medical benefits. Why don't you fighht for medical benefits. If a former spouse remarries they LOOSE THEIR MEDICAL BENEFITS, always have....so what is the issue HB 1053. Veteran's DO NOT MAKE MILLIONS. I am a retired E7 over 20 for pay and only make 19,500 before taxes. Figure taxes on that, 3500. Why should I have to continue to pay you have of my 15,000 every month (and that would be 7,500) after you remarry for your NEW FAMILY.

If you don't want to loose the mere 7,500 a year and your medical benefits, then live poor like your ex veteran spouse and don't remarry.

SUPPORT THIS BILL - It makes common sense for veterans.
- Apr 3, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
Monique – Your comments (April 3, 2009 at 1:33 pm) are flawed. The element of HB 1053 which you are discussing applies only to former spouses who have remarried. It would NOT apply to a former spouse who has NOT remarried. Do you believe it is fair that the retired military veteran should continue to support their former spouse and the former spouse’s new wife or husband for life with cost of living increases? Do you believe the retired military veteran’s new family should suffer financially at the benefit of the former spouse?

Your assertions are vague, emotionally charged and frankly ridiculous. Consider:

• Using your example of a 75 year old former spouse who is destitute with no income generating potential due to age. Why doesn’t this apply equally to the retired military veteran who is also probably destitute because they have been paying 50% or more of their military retired/retainer pay (MRP) to a former spouse?

• According to studies the average age of military recruits is 22 years of age; the average age for divorce is 33 years of age. On average this means it will be a minimum of 9 years post divorce before a former spouse would be eligible for any portion of a retired military members MRP. The current law would NOT assist the former spouse for 9 years post divorce so passage of HB 1053 would have no immediate deleterious effect on the financial situation of the former spouse.

• On average people remarry 3 years after divorce. This means that by the time the ex-spouse begins receiving a portion of the retired military members retainer pay, the ex-spouse will likely be in another marriage. The retired military member will also likely be remarried. While the loss of a portion of the military members retainer pay will enrich the former spouse, it will also harm the current spouse. Is this right?

• Considering the exceptional situation where the ex-spouse immediately begins to receive a portion of the military members retainer pay it only provides a disincentive for the former spouse to become self-supporting. If the military member dies before the former spouse, a likely event if the military member is male (as you seem so certain is the case), the income stream from the military member ceases on the day of their death. Thus, it can be argued that the former spouses’ receipt of military retainer pay may ultimately deter the former spouse from becoming financially independent and set them up for failure later in life, sending them to seek public assistance. If this seems ridiculous, I contend it is no more so than your assertions.

• Passage of HB 1053 will have NO affect on current Oklahoma law regarding alimony and child support.

• Current federal law (10 USC §1072, §1078a and §1086a) provides medical, commissary, exchange and morale, welfare and recreation benefits for former spouses who meet legislated criteria. HB 1053 will have NO affect on these benefits.

Monique, you should keep your comments on point and factual. First, you are personally attacking Sue Tibbs who coauthored this bill because she understands how unfairly current law is treating Oklahoma military members. Eighty-five other House members voted in favor of HB 1053, why do you single out Sue Tibbs? Second, you are trying to make this a gender issue. HB 1053 is gender neutral as both men and women are dying in the war on terror. Third, there ARE national level organizations that actively advocate for former spouses. Monique you need to do your homework and get off the gender issue and personal attacks. Your style lacks credibility.

John, Tulsa - Apr 3, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore John
Does anyone know if HB 1053 would apply RETROACTIVELY to military divorces already settled in court say 10-15-20+ years ago?

I know some now Oklahoma senior citizen elderly women (70 years old and above) who are former spouses of 28 & 30 year military marriages that ended in divorce. 10-15-20+ years ago. These women's respective final divorce decrees awarded them 50% of their ex-husband's military retirement per the USFSPA. These Okla. senior citizens have just learned of HB 1053 from The Oklahoman article published last Sunday, and they are terrified that this bill will automatically re-open their 10-15-20+ year old final respective divorce decrees, require them each in this down economy when they have NO INCOME GENERATING POTENTIAL DUE TO AGE to come up out of thin air with upwards of $20,000 to litigate because HB 1053, whether they can come up with or NOT, might still rip from underneath them the ONLY base financial stability they have in the senior years while they are single after serving their country and the military with devotion.

They and their children were each abandoned and dumped after 26-28 year military marriages by their husbands who pursued numerous sexual affairs with women 20 years younger, these women fulfilled sole parenting roles to their children after the children were also "dumped" by their fathers, the women litigated 10-15-20+ years ago paying upwards of $20,000..... now after reading THE OKLAHOMAN these women are experiencing sleepless nights fearing another round of litigation in their senior years at $20,000+ because of this bill and the possible loss of the roof over their heads and an all around personal financial crisis with the loss of about $1,500/mo if HB 1053 is retroactive.

1st dumped by their husbands after very long marriages, are they now about to be dumped by their state legislators in their senior years in this depressed economy? I wonder if the state legislature did any bill analysis on HB 1053 to ponder indirect increases to the state budget due to increased social service benefits which will likely be applied for in this down market after former spouses running the entire spectrum of ages (from mid-30's to mid-80 year olds) have the rug ripped from underneath them (after their divorce decrees have already been finalized) with this bill?

This bill is disturbing and its fast movement thru the OK legislature is also disturbing. There is no national level organization that ACTIVELY advocates for former spouses. Many of Oklahoma's former spouses are learning of this bill only this week, and it is almost thru the legislature. Because elderly Oklahoma former spouses are only now hearing of this bill, they have had no chance to seek out their legislators to share their views and seek representation in our democratic system. Oklahoma veterans are easily able to stir up grassroots support as they have easily facilitated networking thru Oklahoma's military installations. Elderly former spouses are scattered throughout the state often NOT anywhere near a military installation, and these elderly often do NOT know how and lack the connections that it takes to aggressively reach out and actually get on the schedule of their respective legislators.

I wonder if Rep. Sue Tibbs of Tulsa (75 years old) can spare some time to take phone calls from Oklahoma's senior citizens in the middle of the night who can't sleep lately because they are fearing the loss of the roof over their heads. Perhaps the bill would NOT be retroactive to already decided divorces of 10-15-20+ years ago, and these Ok. senior can stop worrying. Anyone know? If so, I'll pass the info. along and maybe they can sleep again at night knowing they are NOT about to lose the roof over their heads and the money with which they buy food in the senior years.

Monique

- Apr 3, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
Regarding the female US Army Chief Warrant Officer who divorced... This is a real shame for a woman who has custody of all four children and has to give her civilian, male husband 48% of her military retired retainer as ALIMONY FOR LIFE ON EARTH. He has already remarried and is sharing federal taxpayer monies with his new wife. Together, they enjoy the benefits of wearing the uniform in combat duty zones, facing death down and learning and studying the art of war and killing. The benefits his wife earned.

But these two did nothing to be eating out, skiing and enjoying the former military wifes benefits, for life on earth.

JUST IN CASE ANY OF YOU out there have forgotten, as a woman in the military, you study the art of killing and get paid well for it. I can't believe how that would compare with what a spouse does for work. In this case - like many men - he makes even more money than her with the four kids.

Yet, because of this law - he gets the alimony cash from her, for life on earth.

Sickening, embarrasing, disgusting.
Marti, Grover - Apr 2, 2009 at 5:34 pm
No attorney will be able to deny that in Oklahoma, it is NOT illegal for a civilian male rapist, sex-offender, murderer or felon to collect on US Military, federal alimony payments for, "the rest of his life on earth due to having been married, at least one day, to a US Military retired servicewoman." USFSPA. Generally most awards start at $900.00 per month regardless if you ever had children or not. They escalate towards $2000.00 per month with COLA raises annually.

HOWEVER, if the military, retired wife is EVER caught doing any of the following - her retired, military retainer will cease immediately. BUT, the male sex-offender who beat up their child and put the child in a wheel-chair (the reason for the divorce) gets to continue to collect the cash. He also is allowed to share his former wife's alimony for life on earth with his second wife and then with his third wife whom he married now...

Yet, this is legal in America, under law and for US Military only - according to the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA). A law cooked up that is the laughing stock of men sitting around bars these days who help each other to, "marry a military girl and collect welfare for life."

Sound reasonable?

One billion dollars per year in military retired payments.

If this sounds like what YOU intended for a disabled, crippled veteran to have happen to them - then let me know in writing.

Sincerely,

Marti Mongiello
CSCS (SS/SW), USN, Ret.

A former Aide to the President of the United States, White House Military Office
and Joint Chiefs of Staff of America - 21-year veteran (OIF-OEF)
Marti, Grover - Apr 2, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Carson,

Nothing nefarious...just a concerned elected official (notice I didn’t use the word politician) taking the reins on an issue his constituency is passionate about. You may not know this BUT ANYBODY in the Legislature can introduce a bill. Now you being so interested in “old boy political” protocol I assume you are a current or former elected official. Well sir, the political landscape has changed WE, the electorate, do not “kiss rings” and/or “request audiences” anymore. Mr. Banz is OUR servant and as such does OUR bidding. The good ship HB1053 has sailed and the fact Banz and Anderson are piloting the ship gives us great comfort. The fact members of Vet and Military affairs members are late to the dock; it is not only not surprising, but sadly predictable.
Ricky, Midwest City - Apr 2, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Anyone else wondering why HB 1053 came out of the House Vet and Foreign Affairs Committee and was ONLY co-authored by Senator Patrick Anderson on the Senate Judiciary Committee and NOT co-authored by anyone on Senate Vet and Mil Affairs?

Wouldn't this bill have more logically been authored by a member of House Vet and Mil. Affairs member, and a Senate Vet and Mil. Affairs member?

Strikes me that Rep. Banz likely schemed to collaborate with Sen. Patrick Anderson on Judiciary to move the bill quickly and rapidly for some reason around the Senate Vet and Mil Affairs Committee.

Something is clearly going on behind the scenes on this or the bill would have be co-authored by the Committee on Vet and Mil Affairs in the House and the Senate.

Carson in Atoka
- Apr 2, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
Senators, please do the right thing and support HB 1053 by reinstating the title in its "original" form as was passed by the House.
James, Harrison Township - Apr 2, 2009 at 8:53 am
I hope our senators have the courage to stand up for our Veterans and pass this law. I will be watching the news on the outcome of HB 1053, specifically what senators truly believe in the motto "Oklahoma Supports our Troops".
Debbie, Oklahoma City - Apr 1, 2009 at 6:47 pm
L -- You take exception to the words “non-conformance to military lifestyle of the former spouse” as there is no definition of “military lifestyle.” You contend this may cause unending litigation. I find it interesting you picked this one phrase from the section of HB 1053 that reads: "Equitable division of the military retirement pay shall include the following considerations for review by state court in determining classification of the pay as marital or separate property: 4.'any criminal activity, abuse, or non-conformance to military lifestyle of the former spouse.” Why did you ignore the wording “criminal activity and abuse”? There are documented cases where ex-spouses have serious felony convictions and are receiving payment from the military member’s retirement/retainer pay (MRP). In some cases the felony was for physical abuse of the military member who had to file for divorce from the non-military spouse to literally save their life. And in case you did not know:
• If the military member has a felony conviction they lose their MRP.
• The military member is subject to recall to active duty.
• The military member is limited as to what country they can reside in.
• The military member is limited as to what employment they can accept

In your example mixing the concept of a civilian pension and MRP indicates you are not as informed as you believe. Consider the following:

• The U.S. Supreme Court decision McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 (1981) held military retainer pay does not embody even a limited “community property concept.” The only way MRP has status of property was through the legislative alchemy of the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act which was codified in Oklahoma law as Oklahoma Statues Title 43, Section 134 which HB 1053 is intended to change.

• The U.S. Government considers MRP as income and NOT property. Consider:
- Defense Finance and Accounting Services, Garnishment Operations Directive, Cleveland Center, Attorney Instructions for Dividing Retired Pay revised 3/17/2008 states: “Since military retired pay is a federal entitlement, and not a qualified pension plan, there is no requirement that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) be used.”

- IRS Code 26 CFR S31.3401(a)-1(b)(1)(ii) states MRP is a current wage and taxes MRP as income.

- Department of Defense’s policy is that MRP is reduced pay for reduced current services.

• Property can be transferred and bequeathed to heirs. MRP cannot be transferred or bequeathed. In the event the former spouse dies before the veteran, the former spouses’ portion of the retainer pay reverts to the veteran - it cannot be passed to an heir.

MRP is NOT like a civilian pension, defined benefit plan, 401(k) or IRA. Your example is flawed. It is also flawed in that it implies this is a gender issue, if chose to comment again, keep the comments gender neutral. Both men and women are dying in the war on terror!

John, Tulsa - Apr 1, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore John
Stephanie gets it...I hope the the Legislature will.
Ricky, Midwest City - Apr 1, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Very well put Lindsey. I'm your average Oklahoma citizen who has been following the story since it came out last Saturday. I will say, the blogs have been very informative as well as disturbing as there apparently are former spouses who feel the heat and potential loss of income if HB 1053 passes. I have never served in the military, however, both my uncle and father served in a couple of the major wars. I have the highest respect for them and all current active duty, retired, and disabled veterans. I hope and pray that our Oklahoma legislatures see the positive issue of HB 1053 and continue supporting our veterans. They deserve it, because many of them are coming home disabled and financially destitute after a former spouse decides to serve them with divorce papers. Let's keep the comments here positive and focused on the bill. Great job Oklahoma Veterans
Stephanie - Apr 1, 2009 at 3:22 pm
L-- You apparently do not understand that military retainer pay IS NOT a pension. There is no monetary contribution made by either the miltary member or former spouse. I have just learned that our own State Legislatures have within their retirement plan, a provision allowing them to insert a "remarriage clause" at the time of divorce. And they are concerned that if HB 1053 is passed, that the public will see military being treated as special? Give me a break, I deserve a little different treatment considering I just spent 9 months in Afghanistan. How many of our senators ever spent a day in uniform, probably not meaning considernig most of them are attorneys. I will not support an ex-husband and his new wife from 20 years of hard dedicated military service. The important issues of HB 1053 is a remarriage clause and protection of VA disability benefits. Just plain simple fair treatment to all us Veterans in my opinion.
Stephanie - Apr 1, 2009 at 11:52 am
L- Your summation was 100% wrong. You assume the military member would get 50% of the non members retirement…ain’t going to happen. Retirement is NOT treated as property for non-military types it is used to compute alimony.…precedent has long been established on this matter . That is why a double standard exists…do you get it now???
Ricky, Midwest City - Apr 1, 2009 at 11:09 am
Bad bills harm Oklahoma military service members, veterans and military spouses. Regardless of which side of the controversy one is on, this bill is poorly worded from a legal standpoint. For example, "Equitable division of the military retirement pay shall include the following considerations for review by state court in determining classification of the pay as marital or separate property: 4.'any criminal activity, abuse, or non-conformance to military lifestyle of the former spouse.'

There is no definition of what 'non-conformance to military lifestyle' is. Couldn't be more vague and useless of a phrase. Trial attorneys can drop all other cases, and now just represent innocent Oklahoma service members, retirees, and spouses and former spouses for years and earn tens of thousands of dollars just arguing over whether x, y, or z behavior 'conformed to military lifestyle.'

Ponder this:

Assume a woman is a career service member. Her husband is NOT in the military but he does have a career and builds up a pension. The couple divorces. Each receives 50% of the others retirement pension. Eventually they each remarry. Accdg. to this bill, the woman career service member gets to keep BOTH 100% her military pension and her 50% share of her husband's pension, BUT the non-military male spouse gets to keep ONLY his pension because per this bill, he re-married so BINGO, he loses his share of his ex-wife's military pension, and gets only 50% of his own pension!

Anyone affiliated with the military whether active duty, reserve, retired, current spouse, former spouse should support the VOTE AGAINST this bill. It is sloppy legislative drafting no matter what side of the controversy one is on.

The bill is very complex, its implications are dreadful, and it is poorly worded. Only someone familiar with legislative analysis or family law would see this.

Bad bills harm our military families who later endure expensive, frustrating litigation! Our soldiers do their jobs. Our military spouses and military families do their job to support the military community and their family member soldiers. So should our legislators who should only write and support crisp, specific, well-written legislation!

L- Ok City
- Apr 1, 2009 at 12:04 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
My hats off to Tena. The whole blogging has turned into a personal vendetta and I personally am growing tired of it. A lot of us are forgetting the real intention of HB 1053 and bringing personal opinions and feelings into this matter. Let's all try to act civilized and remember that we as citizens who have a right to voice our political concerns and opinions, however, none of us have any right to personally attack one another. That is just plain hyprocritical because none of us are without fault. Keep up the work Mr. Kurland, there's a lot of support apparently here on the blog and throughout the State of Oklahoma. It's about time someone stands up for equality and fairness of our military.
Stephanie - Mar 31, 2009 at 3:20 pm
BRAVO ZULO Frank!! On behalf of all Veterans - Thank you again, you are commended for your effort in working on this House Bill! There are more Veterans suporting you in this effort than you can imagine.
Again I blog, (my blog mysteriously disappeared), and you all know who I am, Frank, Deborah and Lori -
We are all entitled to our individual opionions on this matter - retired military pay should be treated as alimony not personal property.
I make no accusations or slander anyone here.

If you need the money to survive after you remarry - THEN GO BACK TO COURT. Include your new spouses income as property and let the courts decide the basis.

If you want to fight the cause then show up when the bill is discussed and voice your opinion for start your own ralley for a new bill.!

Thank you
Tena, Midwest City - Mar 31, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Tena
BRAVO ZULU John! And I lived those words and know what they mean! You are so right, we all make our own choices........
lori, mcloud - Mar 31, 2009 at 11:14 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore lori
Unless this applies to everybody then it's bad policy. It's a volunteer force and marriage is voluntary. Nobody made you get married and nobody made you choose your career field.
John, Norman - Mar 31, 2009 at 10:02 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore John
Melissa,

Once again, a person from the anti-Frank lobby misses the point…SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!!! They continually choose to ignore the violation of the military retiree's right by supporting the judicial employment of a double standard. Instead they allow their dislike for Mr. Kurland to cloud their judgment. I would expect a woman would realize the impact of a double standard can have on a person’s life.
Ricky, Midwest City - Mar 31, 2009 at 9:48 am
Sounds like we have a lot of children blogging here and there are comments that are being made that has no relevance to the cause. Let's all try and keep the real issue at hand, set aside personal opinions and quit airing out dirty personal laundry. I contacted my senator yesterday and was informed that he supports HB 1053 100%. Slanderous remarks, accusations and stupidity are not having any affect on the true intention of HB 1053 as a matter of fact, just the opposite. Thank you for your indirect support of HB 1053.
Stephanie - Mar 31, 2009 at 9:22 am
Hmmm....I wonder if Frank would be so gung ho if the roles were reversed. Trust me I know he would not. Anyone one who writes "blood money" on the comment line of his child support checks could not be viewed as anything else other than a bitter ex.
Melissa, Norman - Mar 31, 2009 at 8:46 am
I contacte my local rep. to find out his stance on this question and he supports this and will vote yes on this bill should it actually come up for a vote.
Sallie, Del City - Mar 31, 2009 at 8:13 am
Lori,
You are defending a friend which is admirable. I fear your disdain for Mr. Kurland has clouded your sense of reason. It is not germane to the legal argument whether or not Frank was a bad husband/person. The reason HB1053 has gotten this far is the oppositions counter-arguments have been and based in emotion. The facts is a double standard exists which violates a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence; all parties should stand equal before the law. This double standard also violates the cornerstone of justice known as impartiality. This principle of impartiality is based on the assumption that the same standards should apply to all people, without regard to bias, favoritism or preconception. You are guilty of all three in this matter. When you can develop a legitimate legal defense of your position besides more insults directed at Mr. Kurland, I will be willing to listen. BTW, I only have one log-in.
Ricky, Midwest City - Mar 30, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Supporting bitter ex-spouses? I disagree. I have close friend who is a retired Army Chief and is paying her ex-husband 48% of her retirement, and she has custody of their 4 children. He is remarried, both of them gainfully employed and making twice the amount that she is. That's not fair. Benefits should stop after remarriage. I support many provision of HB 1053 and I don't have anything to personally gain from in doing so.
Stephanie - Mar 30, 2009 at 11:07 am
I do have to agree with you "Karen" it is out of hand, there should be no personal issues. The past is the past and it will not change what Mr. Kurland's ex-wife is receiving. If my comments have been read, I have said numerous times I have been on both sides of the story as a Vet and a spouse of a Retired Vet. I see both sides and I completely understand why the spouse should receive this money, folks we are not talking high dollars here. There is no "High Life" to live off of. The true intention of HB 1053 is to support bitter ex-spouses.
lori, mcloud - Mar 30, 2009 at 10:58 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore lori
Folks this is getting out of hand. Let's focus on the true intention of HB 1053, no need to rehash past issues or personally attach anyone. Let's keep this professional, or can you do that?
Stephanie - Mar 30, 2009 at 10:47 am
Wow Ricky, I personnally am not a bitter person, I do take offense to people who do not know what they are talking about and who are not in the situations. I have been on both sides and I do know what I am talking about. Lets see there are many pensions that ex-spouses receive that have no contingencies to them, they are not considered alimoney therefore the State Legislator would then need to change all of them. And no "Ricky from Midwest City" I am not his daughter nor his ex-wife, I am someone that does know both of them and knows their situation and has first hand knowledge of such. I do have to agree that with you they both entered into a marriage, but if you look at statistics, the military pays squat, what lifestyle are you speaking of? House provided? They both worked they both paid the bills, except the spouse stays and takes care of EVERYTHING, most times works two jobs to make ends meet, so I do have to say yes SHE sacrificed. He provided nothing, THEY provided. When someone remarries does not mean they are living the high life on the measly portion she was awarded, in fact in this situation SHE and her new husband are paying for THEIR daughters college and all of her needs, SHE is paying for their sons expenses. I have no idea where you "Ricky of Midwest City" would get the idea she has expensive habits. Let me ask this, what is your inside knowledge? You seem to have one, you also seem to have many log in names. By far Frank is the bitter one here not I. My true name is Lori, Frank knows exactly who I am and knows what kind of person he is and everyone in his circle also knows. This is a vendetta for him, all for not because it will not change his case at all he is just trying to keep his family in turmoil. But thanks for reading and before criticizing my writting, please review your own.
lori, mcloud - Mar 30, 2009 at 10:36 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore lori
Good point Phil: To Lady Teacher, I'm a former spouse of a retired USAF member. I raised our child soley on child support, personal income, and put myself through college. As a result of our amicable divorce, we have raised an outstanding role model of a child with an understanding that you get out of life what you put into it. Yes, I spent holidays alone while my husband was deployed or TDY, I maintained the household and took care of our child. However, that doesn't entitle me to any of his military retirement. He wore the uniform and sacrificed a lot for you and I. We need to keep the blog on a professional level and set aside our personal opinions and differences. Many Veterans have been financially destitute from the current existing law. I see HB 1053 as only a means of evening the playing field. Why should our Veterans suffer financially for the rest of their lives.
Stephanie - Mar 30, 2009 at 10:34 am
Erin Norman. Fantastic point. Alimony to help the former spouse get on his/her feet, that would even the playing field. Support HB 1053, write your senators for their passage of HB 1053 in it's original engrossed form.
Stephanie - Mar 30, 2009 at 10:33 am
First thing Lori...learn how to write sentences LESS than 40 words...you are rambling.

Secondly, why should military members be required to continue to forfeit significant portions of their retirement pay even though the ex-spouse re-marries/cohabitates? Why are military members required to fulfill a LIFELONG court ordered obligation that Oklahoma Legislators are protected from? How can a State Legislator accuse military members of being offered “special treatment” when he/she is ALREADY afforded that very treatment? Military members DO NOT want “special treatment”, all they want is what every other non-military member already has...fair and equitable treatment. Simply put, a double standard exists which HB1053 is designed to eliminate.

Those who oppose HB1053 claim it offers military members “special treatment”. If this is true, then Oklahoma State Legislator Retirees are also given “special treatment”. The Public State Employees Retirement System (OAC 590, Section 590…30-1-6-Termination of a Qualified Domestic Relation Order) establishes protection via a remarriage clause. In other words, payments by Oklahoma State Retirees terminate upon the remarriage of a former spouse.
Ricky, Midwest City - Mar 30, 2009 at 9:08 am
I am glad to see that OK has the foresight to see that this needs to be addressed! There is not another government agency that has anything like the USFSPA that affects their retiree's. The main thing that has to be fixed in this is that each court and each judge interpert this law in their own way. There can be two identical cases go before the court and they both come out completely different? I understand the original purpose of this law, but times change and this should not be a way for the ex-spouse to line their pockets with money they did not earn! I know of one ex-spouse that is receiving two retirements from two ex-spouses and is now married again? This cant be what this was intended for. Good luck OK and I hope to see this passed and than some other states can change their laws.
Stephen, Arlington - Mar 30, 2009 at 8:06 am
What I meant to say in the last few sentences is that I can't stand wives who cheat on their husbands when they're deployed and then expect half of their retirement. It's not fair and they don't deserve it!
Erin, Norman - Mar 30, 2009 at 2:41 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Erin
I can see both sides of the coin. My husband is Active Duty Army. He and I have talked about this very thing several times as we've seen many friends that have had to go through it. The one thing I can see is that as a military spouse I am constantly moving and it's hard to find a good job that will provide options such as a 401K. Even if they do, when I leave the job in a few years. We don't put money into an IRA for me. We consider his retirement "our retirement". I think the current law is you have to be married at least 12 years with all 12 years of the spouse being active duty to receive any of the retirement if divorce happens. I don't think ex spouses should be entitled to 50% of the retirement pay, but I do think if the spouse was dependent on the active duty persons pay than alimony should be paid, only for a certain time period to allow the ex spouse time to get a job/education, whatever the case maybe. I don't think they should be able to take the retirement, just alimony payments for a period of time. I think too that it should be based on a case to case basis. I hate it when some of these wives who cheat on their husbands while they're deployed should not be entitled to ANYTHING from their ex spouse. They don't deserve a dime. I just hope I never have to deal with this, but I think it could be good or bad for the people involved.
Erin, Norman - Mar 30, 2009 at 2:39 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Erin
Thank you Frank!!! It's about time someone got attension to this matter. The key hear is for the Judge to consider the situation of your retirement and how long you have been married. That will depend on how good your lawyer is. I agree that once the spouse remarrys they should no longer be a dependent on their EX. I'm retired Air Guard, she got half the proceeds from the house a judgement from the Judge for $750 a month for four years in alimony and than 8 years down the road when I turn 60 she gets a piece of my guard retirement. It stops if she gets married but than if she gets divorce from that person it starts back up again. B.S. Lets ride the mule until it drops and than ride it some more when it gets back on it's feet!!! I just wonder how this will fair if I was to go in for a reconsideration of my decree??
lewis - Mar 30, 2009 at 1:39 am
First of all I would like to make comments concerning this article, first of all I would like to say in Frank Kurland's case there are inaccuracies reported in this article, he was married to his former wife for 22 years not 17 1/2, he also fails to mention that his former wife was only 14 years old and he was 22 years old when they married, I am so sorry that at the age of 14 years old she did not marry him for his military pention, the other area that was not mentioned is they were married for 19 of his 20 years served, in that time she raised their 3 children and also worked. Every time he was transferred she had to quit her job and move and find a new one. Any spouse that has been in this situation knows you are not able to have a career of your own, your life is for the most part put on hold and while he is deployed out to sea you are a single parent trying to balance everything. I really do not think the normal people reading this or "Debra from Midwest City" was subject to any of this.
It also is not mentioned that Mr. Kurland also has already tried to fight this through the Supreme Court and has lost. There are lots of personal issues here that the public is not aware of and Mr. Kurland is only but another scorned ex-spouse.
Concerning this legislation individuals who have not been in this situation have no idea what spouses (male and female) go through when they are married to military members. Military members would not be able to do what is required of them if it was not for the spouses at home taking care of everything in their absences, I myself have been on both sides of the fence and have my own feelings on the subject, I am a Navy Vet and I am also married to a Retired Navy Veteran, I know what goes on when the spouse leaves, I know what is required of the spouse through their careers. Anyone that has a comment needs to be able to back it up, "Debra from Midwest City" my question to you is this, exactly how long where you married to your ex? See there are stipulations to being entitled to the military retirement and that is you have to be married more than 10 years, they make these stipulations so that people cannot make careers off of getting married and divorced to numerous military members and receiving these retirements, "Lou from Muskogee" this is not even the issue here.
Getting remarried should have no bearing on the ex-spouse who has given up so much so their spouse could serve their country.
For "Debra from Midwest City" who do you think the biggest supporters of our military members are? That would be their spouses, so making the comment to "Support our Troops" is completely inappropriate and insulting to those that serve and for those who are married to them.
lori, mcloud - Mar 29, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore lori
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Kurland. I may be a woman, but I don't believe anyone should have the right to keep affecting another person's standard of living when they have moved on and remarried. As for Senator Laster and his views re this subject, I think he needs to completely reconsider those views. I don't care if it's man or woman, one person should not have to keep paying when the other person has moved on and remarried. If you really want to know what I think, I think this should be considered for ALL types of retirement payment to a divorced spouse, military or civilian. Once one remarries, the divorced spouse should be let off the hook!
Marydith, Yukon - Mar 29, 2009 at 10:25 pm
To the men and women of the United States Military past and present THANK YOU !!! Thank you for fighting for the freedoms we so righly enjoy. As for family lawyers such as Sen. Charlie Laster who are opponents of the badly needed changes to USFSPA as applied by HB 1053, SHAME ON YOU FOR FORGETTING the very people who made it possible for you to practice your profession, (Our nations veterans). Considering you don't stand behind them, as demonstrated by your vote, I would invite you to stand in front of them. The days of the cash cow are changing. The big lie Sen. Laster is that this change will cause more divorces, WRONG deduction watson...there is now no incentive to divorce and collect money that was not earned by the former spouse of the veteran (male or female). In fact, the record shows that some men and women make a living from marring and divoring as many as five spouses, with the incentive of collecting from up to five retirements.
lou, muskogee - Mar 29, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore lou
"Why the heck is military retirement pay any different than anyone else's retirement pay?--Concerned, Central Oklahoma - Mar 28, 2009 at 2:16 PM" I can answer as couple of those questions for you. First, retired military pay comes directly from the time a serviceperson serves (20 years equals 50% average of the the last three years served) The military member does not pay into the system and has no vested rights. If the military member would seperate at 19years, 11months and 29days--they would not get a RETIREMENT. The difference between a law enforcement/fire fighter retirement, is basically this---the LE/FF pays 8.5% of the gross wage for each pay period matched by the employer at a rate of 13.5%. You must stay 20 years (vested at 10 years) to draw the retirement OR if you elect to leave prior to the 20 years you can either draw out your contribution or wait until the 20 year time frame has arrived and then apply (maybe not approved) for a retirement check. Here is a question though---if a person is drawing or is going to draw social security, do they have to give a portion of that to the ex-spouse?
B, Nicoma Park - Mar 29, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore B
Phil you're lucky. However,our courts are violating federal law that prohibits the use of VA disability for any reason. A recent Oklahoma court case, Troxell vs Troxell which can viewed in it's entirety on www.oscn.net explains a litter further. During Mr. Troxell's divorce proceedings, he received an increase in his VA disability consequently, the court mandated that he compensate his ex-spouse out of his own pocket for the decrease in her military retirement benefits. This is not isolated case. HB 1053 specifically protects all VA disability from being considered as divisible property or for any purpose that the court deems in it's infinite wisdom. Bear in mind this provision in HB 1053 will protect all VA disabled Veterans that are retired or otherwise. I encourage you to email your Senators ask them to reinstate the title in it's Engrossed form andnot offer any amendments to alter or kill the spirit of this important legislation for all Oklahoma Veternas.
Debbie, Oklahoma City - Mar 29, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I guess I was lucky. My veterans pay is in the form of disability benefits.
Phil, Norman - Mar 29, 2009 at 11:52 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Phil
Your article states “They (opponents of HB 1053) also say the plan could add to Oklahoma’s high divorce rate.” I contend that the current law contributes to Oklahoma’s high divorce rate. As Oklahoma law is currently written a non-military spouse only has to file for divorce which, under our no-fault laws, will be granted automatically. The non-military spouse has NO incentive to work on a troubled marriage. Given the fact that once the divorce is granted and the military member retires, the non-military ex-spouse is guaranteed a lifetime payment with annual cost of living increases even after the non-military spouse remarries. So how does indenturing the retired military member to a life of having to support their family on half-retirement and supporting their ex-spouse and their new family contribute to bad public policy?
No, HB 1053 does not give special preference to veterans, it gives them the same rights Oklahoma Public Employees enjoy, the same rights that state Senators enjoy!

Most veterans cannot make it on half their retirement. They have devoted one third or more of their lives so that you and your families could enjoy the freedoms of being an American citizen. Please show you “support the troops” and repay them just a little by e-mailing the state the senators and asking them to vote “Do Pass” for HB 1053 in its original engrossed form.

The senator’s contact information can be obtained at http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/ then click “Senate Members” in the right hand column. Select each senator then scroll down to their e-mail address.

John, Tulsa - Mar 29, 2009 at 11:14 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore John
John, Tulsa - Mar 29, 2009 at 11:13 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore John
I am a former spouse of a retired USAF Master Sergant and support HB 1053 in it's original engrossed form. According to the Oklahoma Public State Employees Retirement System OAC 590, Section 590..30-1-6-Termination of a Qualified Domestic Relation Order, www.opers.ok.gov all Oklahoma State Legislators' Retirement is protected by a remarriage clause. In other words, payments terminate upon the remarriage of a former spouse. With all due respect to Senator Charles Laster (Family Law Attorney), why he would he state that "This would give military members a distinct different status in divorce law, I'm not sure that's good for public policy", when in fact his state retirement plan protects him by terminating payments to a alternate payee (former spouse) upon remarriage. Our military members are asking for the same protections that our elected officials have, how is that bad public policy? I see it as double standard. Further more, theirs (Senators) is a qualified pension plan, where military retirement is reduced pay for current reduced services, and a taxable wage with restrictions placed on it that former spouses or no other segment of society are accountable to and does not even embody a community property concept as found in the USSC McCarty Decision. What gives? For anyone that would like to find out how our Veterans across the nation are being treated in state courts and a true definition what military retired retainer pay is and how it provides for the defense of our nation, please visit www.ulsg.org. SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, THEY DESERVE IT.
Debbie, Oklahoma City - Mar 29, 2009 at 10:16 am
This is the very reason I will never get married again. The judicial system has destroyed the concept of marriage by making it a potential lottery for a spouse that decides she "just doesn't want to be married anymore". It happened to me once, it won't happen again.
W, Ada - Mar 29, 2009 at 9:26 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore W
Concerned, CO.....good questions all.....I have no great answer or solutions.....It is just my opinion as my husband has served in every crap hole, war and/or incursion since 1984.....I simply can't think of any justification for me to have access to his retirement even after washing his clothes after all these years.....lol
Sallie, Del City - Mar 28, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Why the heck is military retirement pay any different than anyone else's retirement pay? EVERY pension program has requirements & stipulations. No person can draw from a pension that they do not qualify for. If you shield one, shield them all, or just don't do it. Do police officers or firefighters have any less dangerous job in protecting the community? They've served us well, too, yet their retirement income isn't shielded by this bill. Just more of the same old crap where politicians protect special interest groups, if you ask me. So much for less government.
Concerned, Central Oklahoma - Mar 28, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Ok, found it! Yes indeed a spouse is entitled to claim the veterans retirement pay as alimony......I can't stress enough my objections to this issue based upon this article. There are rare exceptions, i.e., a vet who does make any other income and the wife/husband is incapacitated in some form, but that would be the exception......Most vets (male or female) can't live on their retirement funds alone and must find employment after retirement.....Alimony from this income I can agree upon. Leave the ‘they earned it’ dollars alone.
Sallie, Del City - Mar 28, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I will have to go over the documents we receive in our TAPS class in regards to this subject......I seem to remember/think that this stipulation of benefits to the spouse stopping on remarriage......Until I double check, I will post my opinion.....any spouse maybe entitled to alimony or child support but the allowance in a divorce that favors the former spouse to entitlement of retirement income is wrong.......I am a spouse of a retiring vet (he is on terminal leave) and God Forbid should divorce be an issue, I can't think of any reason that I am entitled to one dime of what he risked/worked for all of those years.(24yrs). Division of property acquired, yes, but retirement, NO.
Sallie, Del City - Mar 28, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Bravo!!!!! It's about time our Veterans are treated with the respect that they deserve. Come on folks, it's the 21st century, all you ex-spouses who feel that they are entitled to a lifetime of monetary benefits, GET A JOB!!!!!! Do you not have any scruples?
Debbie, Oklahoma City - Mar 28, 2009 at 11:42 am

News Photo Galleriesview all