Gagnon v. Gagnon
Decision Date | 05 March 2002 |
Docket Number | No. COA01-119.,COA01-119. |
Citation | 149 NC App. 194,560 S.E.2d 229 |
Parties | David Charles GAGNON, Plaintiff, v. Cecelia Rothwell GAGNON, Defendant. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Andrew A. Lassiter, Morehead City, for plaintiff-appellant.
James Q. Wallace, III, Morehead City, for defendant-appellee.
David Charles Gagnon ("plaintiff") appeals from the equitable distribution order by the trial court granting plaintiff's former wife, Cecelia Rothwell Gagnon ("defendant"), a twenty-six percent share of plaintiff's military retirement benefits. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court.
The facts pertinent to the instant appeal are as follows: On 18 November 1997, plaintiff filed a complaint in Carteret County District Court seeking a divorce from bed and board and equitable distribution of the marital assets. On 9 May 2000, the trial court entered a consent order distributing a portion of the marital assets. The consent order reserved for further consideration two contested issues between the parties, one of which was the division of plaintiff's military retirement benefits. These outstanding issues subsequently came before the trial court, which made the following relevant factual findings:
Based on the above-stated dates, the trial court further found that "the Defendant was married to the Plaintiff 51.25 percent of the time in which he was in the military service accruing his military retirement pay." The trial court therefore concluded, inter alia, that "the Defendant is entitled to a Twenty Six Percent (26%) share of the Plaintiff's military retirement." The trial court thereafter entered an order awarding defendant a twenty-six percent share of plaintiff's military retirement benefits, from which order plaintiff now appeals.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by awarding defendant a twenty-six percent share of plaintiff's military retirement benefits. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court.
Plaintiff argues that the trial court improperly awarded defendant a portion of the benefits he earned prior to entering the marriage. Plaintiff asserts that benefits attributable to his first period of military service were not built upon a foundation of marital effort by defendant. Thus, plaintiff argues, the 30 September 1996 retirement pay increase to the rank of Captain was a statutory increase due to the passage of years based on a period of time during which plaintiff was not married. Plaintiff acknowledges that these benefits vested during the marriage, but contends that it is unjust to allow defendant to share in this portion of plaintiff's retirement benefits, and that her share should be confined to benefits earned by plaintiff during his second period of active service in which the marriage overlapped.
The division of marital property is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Johnson v. Johnson, 78 N.C.App. 787, 790, 338 S.E.2d 567, 569-70 (1986)
. Accordingly, a trial court's ruling in an equitable distribution award is entitled to great deference upon appellate review, and will be disturbed only if it is "so arbitrary that [it] could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." Lawing v. Lawing, 81 N.C.App. 159, 162, 344 S.E.2d 100, 104 (1986).
N.C. Gen.Stat. § 50-20.1(d) (1999). Such retirement benefits include "vested and nonvested military pensions." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 50-20.1(h) (1999). The valuation method prescribed by section 50-20.1(d), known as the "fixed percentage method," can be expressed as a fraction, the numerator of which "is the total period of time the marriage existed (up to the date of separation) simultaneously with the employment which earned the vested pension or retirement rights[,]" with the denominator being "the total amount of time the employee spouse is employed in the job which earned the vested pension or retirement rights." Lewis v. Lewis, 83 N.C.App. 438, 442-43, 350 S.E.2d 587, 589 (1986); see also Seifert v. Seifert, 82 N.C.App. 329, 337, 346 S.E.2d 504, 508 (1986) (approving the fixed percentage method for distribution of military retirement benefits), affirmed, 319 N.C. 367, 354 S.E.2d 506 (1987).
Following the statutory provisions, the trial court in the instant case correctly determined that plaintiff served in the Army for approximately ten years while he was married. Comparing this length of time to plainti...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crago v. Crago
...of the trial court.’ " Cunningham v. Cunningham , 171 N.C. App. 550, 555, 615 S.E.2d 675, 680 (2005) (quoting Gagnon v. Gagnon , 149 N.C. App. 194, 197, 560 S.E.2d 229, 231 (2002) ). "A trial court may be reversed for abuse of discretion only upon a showing that its actions are manifestly u......
-
Cunningham v. Cunningham
...of property in an equitable distribution "is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court." Gagnon v. Gagnon, 149 N.C.App. 194, 197, 560 S.E.2d 229, 231 (2002). The trial court's division will only be reversed upon a showing that it "could not have been the result of a reasoned d......
-
Gilmore v. Garner
...benefits which plaintiff was entitled to receive under the separation agreement and applicable law. See Gagnon v. Gagnon, 149 N.C.App. 194, 198, 560 S.E.2d 229, 232 (2002) (affirming the trial court's application of the fixed percentage method in awarding the plaintiff's former wife twenty-......
-
Barton v. Barton
...of time the employee spouse is employed in the job which earned the vested pension or retirement rights.” Gagnon v. Gagnon, 149 N.C.App. 194, 198, 560 S.E.2d 229, 231 (2002) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Defendant began working for the McClatchy Company on 2 May 1977. Defendan......
-
§ 12.03 Military Longevity and Disability Retirement
...App. 1994). Maryland: Collins v. Collins, 144 Md. App. 395, 798 A.2d 1155 (2002). North Carolina: Gagnon v. Gagnon, 149 N.C. App. 194, 560 S.E.2d 229 (2002). North Dakota: Beals v. Beals, 517 N.W.2d 413 (N.D. 1994). Virginia: Mosley v. Mosley, 19 Va. App. 192, 450 S.E.2d 161 (1994). [206] S......