Fenney v. Fenney, 76--51
| Decision Date | 07 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--51,76--51 |
| Citation | 259 Ark. 858,537 S.W.2d 367 |
| Parties | Roberta Z. FENNEY, Appellant, v. William C. FENNEY, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Carpenter, Finch & Dishongh, Little Rock, for appellant.
Wayne R. Foster, Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant Roberta Z. Fenney having been granted a divorce from appellee William C. Fenney appeals from the trial court's holding that she was not entitled to one-third of her husband's Air Force retirement pay. We affirm the trial court.
Ark.Stat.Ann. § 34--1214 (Repl.1962) provides that a wife who is granted a divorce 'shall be entitled to one-third (1/3) of the husband's personal property absolutely, and one-third (1/3) of all the lands whereof her husband was seized of an estate of inheritance at any time during the marriage for her life, . . .'
We do not consider the right to receive retirement pay from the armed forces to be personal property within the meaning of Ark.Stat.Ann. § 34--1214, supra. The right to a pension and retirement pay, not yet due and payable, cannot be assigned, sold, transferred, conveyed or pledged. See In re Marriage of Ellis, 538 P.2d 1347 (Colo.App.1975).
Appellant relies upon cases from community property states, such as Ramsey v. Ramsey, 96 Idaho 672, 535 P.2d 53 (1975), and Miser v. Miser, 475 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.Civ.App.1971), to support her position. For the reasons stated in In re Marriage of Ellis, supra, we do not find the decisions from the community property states to be persuasive. In effect, the community property jurisdictions treat armed forces' retirement pay as alimony; otherwise, it is not collectible, 42 U.S.C. § 659 (Supp. IV, 1974).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carty v. Carty
...value; . . . [or] value realizable after death." Ellis v. Ellis, 191 Colo. 317, 319, 552 P.2d 506, 507 (1976). See Fenney v. Fenney, 259 Ark. 858, 537 S.W.2d 367 (1976). 16 A number of state courts have held that military retired pay is deferred compensation, not current compensation for re......
-
Ex parte Burson
...all military retirement benefits are preempted from the purview of state divorce actions. See Cose v. Cose, supra; Fenney v. Fenney, 259 Ark. 858, 537 S.W.2d 367 (1976); Ellis v. Ellis, 191 Colo. 317, 552 P.2d 506 (1976); Russell v. Russell, supra. See also Paulsen v. Paulsen, 601 S.W.2d 87......
-
Linson v. Linson
...Idaho 433, 599 P.2d 1004 (1979). Recent decisions to the contrary have come from Arkansas, Colorado and Indiana. See Fenney v. Fenney, 259 Ark. 858, 537 S.W.2d 367 (1976), Ellis v. Ellis, 191 Colo. 317, 552 P.2d 506 (1976), Hiscox v. Hiscox, Ind.App., 385 N.E.2d 1166 (1979). Of these, Ellis......
-
Hill v. Hill, 1636
...v. Ellis, 191 Colo. 317, 552 P.2d 506, 507 (Colo. 1976). Accord, Paulsen v. Paulsen, 269 Ark. 523, 601 S.W.2d 873 (1980); Fenney v. Fenney, 537 S.W.2d 367 (Ark. 1976); Hiscox v. Hiscox, 385 N.E.2d 1166 (Ind. 1979); Baker v. Baker, 421 A.2d 998 (N.H. 1980); Baker v. Baker, 546 P.2d 1325 (Okl......
-
Degrees of Losing: a Challenge to the Federal "frozen Benefit Rule"
...retirement pay is not property under [Colorado's] dissolution of marriage act" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Fenney v. Fenney, 537 S.W.2d 367, 367 (Ark. 1976) ("We do not consider the right to receive retirement pay from the armed forces to be personal property.").41. McCarty, 453 U.......