Garcia v. Garcia

• Decision Date: 30 October 2009
• Docket Number: No. 28,106.,28
• Citation: 227 P.3d 621
• Parties: Linda Joyce GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Jerry M. GARCIA, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

227 P.3d 621

2010-NMCA-014

2010-NMCA-014

Linda Joyce GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Jerry M. GARCIA, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 28,106.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

October 30, 2009.

Certiorari Granted, No. 32,162, February 2, 2010.

Mary E. Chappelle, L. Helen Bennett, L. Helen Bennett, P.C., Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee.

Thomas C. Montoya, Atkinson & Kelsey, P.A., Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant.

OPINION

SUTIN, Judge.

{1} This case involves enforcement of a 1994 marital settlement agreement and a 1995 domestic relations order relating to a wife's entitlement to a husband's retirement benefits. We are mainly concerned with two issues, namely, (1) when the wife was entitled to begin receiving benefits, and (2) how to calculate the amount of benefits to be paid to the wife. Based on its interpretations of the documents, the district court determined that the wife was entitled to receive benefits starting at the husband's first retirement eligibility as opposed to his actual retirement. The court also determined that the benefits should be calculated based on the husband's average salaries at the time of retirement eligibility as opposed to at the time of the divorce. We hold that the court did not err, and we affirm.

INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE

{2} By way of introduction, we note the circumstances underlying the issues before us. The parties did not talk to each other about calculation of retirement benefits when they signed their marital settlement agreement. The agreement passed between their attorneys, and there is no indication that the attorneys specifically discussed with their clients how each share would be calculated or specifically discussed the point in time when the non-employee recipient would begin receiving the monthly distribution of her share of the benefits. There is no evidence that either spouse formed any particular intention at the time of the marital settlement agreement with respect to the when and the how-much aspects of the distributions. The attorneys prepared and the parties agreed to retirement benefits provisions that were ambiguous—both as to when the non-employee spouse was to begin receiving her monthly distribution of her community share and as to how her community share of the employee-spouse's benefits was to be calculated.

{3} These unfortunate circumstances became significant hurdles when, years after the divorce occurred, the non-employee spouse raised issues as to when she should have begun to receive payments and how much she should receive. In the district court, the case became a procedural morass and this complicated resolution of the issues. Ultimately, the parties argued for their respective, differing view of language in the documents. The district court chose the non-employee-spouse's view. In wrestling with an unsatisfactory history, we have treated the appeal narrowly as one involving whether the district court erred in its interpretation of ambiguous language in controlling documents. With the foregoing introduction in mind, we now turn to the background and specific issues in the present case.

BACKGROUND

{4} Linda Joyce Garcia (Wife) and Jerry M. Garcia (Husband) were married in August 1978. They entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA) on September 20, 1994. The MSA was incorporated by reference into and approved by a judgment and final decree of dissolution of marriage filed October 20, 1994. When we refer to "the MSA" in this opinion, we mean both the MSA and the judgment and final decree. Husband was first eligible to retire after December 11, 2005, when he reached thirty years of service with the United States Postal Service and age fifty-five. The thirty years of service were a combination of Husband's service before marriage and after divorce, and community service during marriage.

Provisions of the MSA and Domestic Relations Order

{5} In Section II(A)(5) of the MSA, as part of the parties' compromised distribution of the community property, Wife was to receive the following as her separate property.

One-half of the community interest in Husband's retirement plan with the United States Postal Service through the date of August 31, 1994, to be determined in accord with the following formula:

d = ab ---- 2c

where: a = Husband's gross monthly retirement benefits;

b = Months of credited service from August 9, 1978, through the date of August 31, 1994, a total of 192 months;

c = total number of months of credited service at retirement (unknown at this time);

d = Wife's interest.

In Section II(B)(4) of the MSA, Husband was to receive "one-half of the community interest in his retirement plan ... and all of the interest he accrued in his retirement plan prior to the marriage and subsequent to August 31, 1994."

{6} The domestic relations order filed in March 1995 dividing Husband's civil service retirement benefits provided that the retirement benefits accrued by Husband during the marriage to the date of the divorce were community property. The order also provided that Wife was entitled to receive her share of the benefits directly from the plan administrator. The order further provided that Wife was entitled to her portion of Husband's retirement benefits based on a formula set out in the order that was similar to that in Section II(A)(5) of the MSA. The formula stated:

D = 50% of A X B --- C where A = Husband's gross monthly retirement benefits B = 192 months C = Total number of months of creditable service employment of Husband at his retirement D = Wife's share

Wife's Motion to Enforce the MSA and Husband's First Appeal

{7} In March 2006, Wife asked the court to enforce her interest in Husband's retirement and to award accrued pre-retirement amounts. At a July 19, 2006, hearing on enforcement of the MSA, Wife appeared with counsel and Husband appeared pro se. Wife sought $590 in monthly payments as of December 11, 2005, which was the first eligibility date of Husband's interest in his retirement, and she also sought arrearages totaling $4425. Wife's counsel presented a benefits calculation that was, in counsel's view, "pretty standard because typically ... if you think of the numerator being the months of the marriage, the denominator being the entire time that the person earns the retirement, times one-half, then that's the community interest." Wife's counsel explained the following to the court:

What happens actually, in practice is ... over time ... the percentage that the former non-employee spouse receives gets lower because the fraction, since the numerator stays the same and the denominator gets bigger, her, it's usually the wife, her fraction of share actually gets smaller and smaller, the percentage goes down over time, but ... the reason people negotiate this is, one they don't have a choice because there isn't enough money at the time they divorce and, and the second reason is typically the income goes up, as people receive promotions, hopefully in grade cost of living and so it's a smaller percentage times a higher monthly benefit amount.

Wife's counsel also indicated that the formula used "typically ... included in most cases..., not only the marital settlement agreement, but it's also in the qualified domestic relations order, if there is one" and that the formula "was negotiated, it's in the MSA." In addition, Wife's counsel explained:

We wrote in, in the formula, that the marital months were 192, according to my math Husband spent a total of 824 months earning this retirement.... So that with my math, came out to be 23.2 percent is Wife's share of the gross monthly annuity which would be $2533. That's what he would have started receiving December 11 of 2005. So, I calculated that Husband would be required to pay... Wife $590 per month. That's 23.2 times 2533, ... he should have been paying it since December. So he has accrued an arrearage of, for seven and a half months of retirement, ... Wife should have received commencing December 11. And ... seven and a half months times the $590 is $4425.

{8} During this July 19, 2006, hearing, the court inquired of Husband if he was going to have an attorney, to which Husband replied that he could not afford one but was in the process of coming up with the money to obtain one. The court then inquired regarding the MSA, and Husband stated that he "agreed with the formula that they came up with." When asked if he understood what that meant, Husband said, "I thought that was upon retirement." In response to a statement by the court to Husband that under the current law, as represented by Wife's counsel, Wife was entitled to her benefits when Husband became eligible for retirement, Husband responded, "Okay." In response to a statement by the court to Husband that under the case of Ruggles v. Ruggles, 116 N.M. 52, 860 P.2d 182 (1993), as it was represented by Wife's attorney, Wife was entitled to receive the amounts that Wife's attorney had represented earlier, and to a follow-up inquiry whether he understood that, Husband replied, "I understand that." "Sympathetic to a degree" that Husband did not have an attorney, the court indicated that if Husband chose to get legal counsel "to dispute that amount," Husband would have to have his attorney file a motion in that regard, suggesting that the court would not "go back and redo" the formula, but that perhaps "the figures that Wife would receive... would change."

{9} In calculating what Wife was entitled to receive, the court used the figures presented by Wife's attorney. Following the hearing, also on July 19, 2006, the court issued a minute order requiring Husband to pay Wife $590 per month as her share of the retirement benefit commencing August 1, 2006. This amount was calculated based on what Husband would have received had he retired on December 11, 2005. Using the monthly $590 amount, the court also entered a judgment of $4425 for arrearages based on seven and one-half months of benefits that Wife was...