Colvin v. Colvin, No. 56409

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtWALKER; PATTERSON
Citation487 So.2d 840
PartiesDoris M. COLVIN v. James T. COLVIN.
Docket NumberNo. 56409
Decision Date30 April 1986

Page 840

487 So.2d 840
Doris M. COLVIN
v.
James T. COLVIN.
No. 56409.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
April 30, 1986.

Michael Malski, Carnathan, Malski & Ford, Amory, for appellant.

Carter Dobbs, Jr., Amory, for appellee.

Before WALKER, P.J., and ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ.

WALKER, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

Doris Colvin appeals the decision of the Chancery Court of Monroe County denying her request for modification of the divorce decree entered between the parties in March, 1982.

Doris and James Colvin were married March 11, 1950, and lived together until April, 1981, when James Colvin filed for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The parties entered into a separation agreement which was incorporated into the final decree of divorce in March, 1982. In this agreement Doris Colvin agreed to release James Colvin from any claims for alimony, support and maintenance for herself.

On May 28, 1982, Doris Colvin filed a complaint to modify the former decree. She alleges that a change in the law since the time of the original decree permits divorce courts to divide military retirement pay as marital property. It was stipulated that the income and living expenses of the parties had not substantially changed since the time of the original decree. Mrs. Colvin requested the court to grant her half of Mr. Colvin's military retirement pay as alimony. The court sustained Mr. Colvin's motion for summary judgment.

In McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981) the United States Supreme Court held that military retirement pay was not community property subject to division on dissolution of a marriage. In 1982 Congress enacted the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1408, to overrule the decision in McCarty.

The Act, which took effect on February 1, 1983, provides in Section (c)(1):

Subject to the limitations of this section, a court may treat disposable retired or retainer pay payable to a member for pay periods beginning after June 21, 1981 [the date of the McCarty decision], either as property solely of the member or as property of the member and his spouse in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction of such court.

The effect of the Act is to allow state courts to reconsider divorce settlements made under the McCarty decision and to deal with military pensions as the state court sees fit. The Act permits direct government payments to former spouses

Page 841

up to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Petters v. Petters, No. 07-CA-59311
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 11, 1990
    ...reference to the amount of William's military retirement pension. See Bowe v. Bowe, 557 So.2d 793, 795 (Miss.1990); Colvin v. Colvin, 487 So.2d 840, 841 2 Consider a hypothetical example, legally analogous unto today's case. Mutt and Schmuck, lifelong residents of Arkansas enter into a pre-......
  • Southern v. Glenn, No. 07-CA-59364
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 3, 1990
    ...hand, Mississippi law confers upon a spouse no property right as such in a serviceman's military retirement pay. 1 See Colvin v. Colvin, 487 So.2d 840, Page 284 841 (Miss.1986); Powers v. Powers, 465 So.2d 1036, 1037 (Miss.1985). In these situations Newman v. Newman, 558 So.2d 821 (Miss.199......
  • Hemsley v. Hemsley, No. 92-CA-00423
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • July 7, 1994
    ...Bracey, 408 So.2d 1387 (Miss.1982); Savell v. Savell, 290 So.2d 621 (Miss.1974); See Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 93-5-23." Colvin v. Colvin, 487 So.2d 840, 841 I. THE COURT ERRED BY AWARDING ALIMONY TO ELIZABETH M. HEMSLEY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IN AWARDING AN AMOUNT OF ALIMONY WHICH WAS MORE......
  • Hubbard v. Hubbard, No. 92-CA-01031-SCT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • June 1, 1995
    ...9, 12 (Miss.1989); McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 502-03 (Miss.1987); East v. East, 493 So.2d 927, 931 (Miss.1986); Colvin v. Colvin, 487 So.2d 840, 841 (Miss.1986); Wray v. Wray, 394 So.2d 1341, 1344 (Miss.1981). Lump sum alimony differs in that it is a final settlement, not subject to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Petters v. Petters, No. 07-CA-59311
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 11, 1990
    ...reference to the amount of William's military retirement pension. See Bowe v. Bowe, 557 So.2d 793, 795 (Miss.1990); Colvin v. Colvin, 487 So.2d 840, 841 2 Consider a hypothetical example, legally analogous unto today's case. Mutt and Schmuck, lifelong residents of Arkansas enter into a pre-......
  • Southern v. Glenn, No. 07-CA-59364
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 3, 1990
    ...hand, Mississippi law confers upon a spouse no property right as such in a serviceman's military retirement pay. 1 See Colvin v. Colvin, 487 So.2d 840, Page 284 841 (Miss.1986); Powers v. Powers, 465 So.2d 1036, 1037 (Miss.1985). In these situations Newman v. Newman, 558 So.2d 821 (Miss.199......
  • Hemsley v. Hemsley, No. 92-CA-00423
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • July 7, 1994
    ...Bracey, 408 So.2d 1387 (Miss.1982); Savell v. Savell, 290 So.2d 621 (Miss.1974); See Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 93-5-23." Colvin v. Colvin, 487 So.2d 840, 841 I. THE COURT ERRED BY AWARDING ALIMONY TO ELIZABETH M. HEMSLEY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IN AWARDING AN AMOUNT OF ALIMONY WHICH WAS MORE......
  • Hubbard v. Hubbard, No. 92-CA-01031-SCT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • June 1, 1995
    ...9, 12 (Miss.1989); McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 502-03 (Miss.1987); East v. East, 493 So.2d 927, 931 (Miss.1986); Colvin v. Colvin, 487 So.2d 840, 841 (Miss.1986); Wray v. Wray, 394 So.2d 1341, 1344 (Miss.1981). Lump sum alimony differs in that it is a final settlement, not subject to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT