Allison v. Allison
| Decision Date | 04 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C-4384,C-4384 |
| Citation | 700 S.W.2d 914 |
| Parties | Antonia Caricato ALLISON, Petitioner, v. William R. ALLISON, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
James G. Reynolds (Gandy, Michener, Swindle, Whitaker & Pratt), Fort Worth, for petitioner.
Vicki Smith Ganske (Ganske and Getchell), Fort Worth, for respondent.
This is a partition suit brought by a former spouse of a military serviceman to obtain division of military retirement benefits. The trial court rendered summary judgment for the serviceman, and the court of appeals affirmed that judgment. 690 S.W.2d 340. The parties were divorced in September, 1981. The divorce decree expressly awarded all military retirement benefits to the serviceman.
The parties' divorce decree was rendered after the date of the United States Supreme Court's opinion in McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981), and before the effective date of the Uniform Services Former Spouses Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1408 [February 1, 1983]. The USFSPA makes McCarty nugatory with respect to its application to judgments rendered after the date of that decision. Segrest v. Segrest, 649 S.W.2d 610, 613 n. 2 (Tex.1983); Cameron v. Cameron, 641 S.W.2d 210, 212-13 (Tex.1982). Accordingly, the rules of law applicable to the partition of military retirement benefits which controlled prior to the rendition of the McCarty decision control the disposition of partition suits brought after the effective date of the USFSPA.
Partition is available as a means of dividing property formerly held by spouses as community property which is not divided upon divorce and is later held by the former spouses as tenants in common. Harrell v. Harrell, 692 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.1985). However, the disposition of retirement benefits in the express terms of a divorce decree renders those benefits not subject to later partition. Constance v. Constance, 544 S.W.2d 659, 660-61 (Tex.1976). In the present case, the divorce decree made an express disposition of William Allison's military retirement benefits. The court of appeals' opinion is consistent with our opinion in Constance v. Constance and, therefore, we refuse petitioner's application for writ of error, no reversible error. Tex.R.Civ.P. 483.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. Porter
...(Ky.1985); Andresen v. Andresen, 317 Md. 380, 564 A.2d 399 (1989); Marriage of Quintard, 691 S.W.2d 950 (Mo.Ct.App.1985); Allison v. Allison, 700 S.W.2d 914 (Tex.1985) (where divorce decree made express disposition of military retirement benefits). ¶11 The majority of states having consider......
-
Trahan v. Trahan
...(Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1985) (USFSPA was permissive and res judicata barred subsequent reopening of litigation), writ ref'd n.r.e., 700 S.W.2d 914 (Tex.1985).3 The USFSPA was enacted on September 8, 1982 and became effective on February 1, 1983.4 McKnight cites portions of the Conference Com......
-
Andresen v. Andresen
...became final during the McCarty era, cannot be reopened. In Allison v. Allison, 690 S.W.2d 340, 344 (Tex.App.1985) (no writ of error, 700 S.W.2d 914), the Texas Court of Appeals The law of the courts of this state does not have an equivalent of Federal Rule 60 and does not recognize the aut......
-
Wallace v. Fuller
...cert. denied 475 U.S. 1002, 106 S.Ct. 1171, 89 L.Ed.2d 291 (1986); see also Koepke v. Koepke, 732 S.W.2d 299 (Tex.1987); Allison v. Allison, 700 S.W.2d 914 (Tex.1985). Fuller urges us to follow this interpretation of the Act. She suggests McCarty and the Act control only the divisibility of......
-
§ 12.03 Military Longevity and Disability Retirement
...Hester v. Hester, 675 N.E.2d 63 (Ohio App. 1996); Alexander v. Alexander, 484 N.E.2d 1068 (Ohio App. 1985). Texas: Allison v. Allison, 700 S.W.2d 914 (Tex. 1985); Wright v. Wright, 710 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. App. 1986). Wisconsin: Tozer v. Tozer, 121 Wis.2d 187, 358 N.W.2d 537 (1984). See also, C......