Oklahoma veterans fight for change in divorce law
Bill would treat retirement funds as alimony instead of property
BY JULIE BISBEE
Comments 
85
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
‘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.”
Related Topics:
Culture and Lifestyle, Relationships, Law, Family Law, Divorce, Divorce Law, Veterans' Affairs
Prev
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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……
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.
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!
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.
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
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
"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.
Are you involved and a part of Kurland's legal team or just the legal team behind this special interest bill?
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.
(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.
I get the sense that you are likely Kurland's family law attorney handling his matter.... for some reason... ;)
Monique
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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
• 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!
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.