Patrick v. Patrick
| Decision Date | 10 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-84-273-CV,2-84-273-CV |
| Citation | 693 S.W.2d 52 |
| Parties | Mary Ann PATRICK, Appellant, v. John Milton PATRICK, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Boyce Coleman, Denton, for appellant.
Richard B. Tanner, Plano, for appellee.
Before BURDOCK, HILL and HOPKINS, JJ.
This appeal involves a suit to enforce a contractual division of military retirement benefits upon divorce. Judgment was rendered for the husband that the wife take nothing.
We reverse and remand.
In 1979, husband and wife were divorced while husband was still in the Air Force. The settlement agreement upon which the divorce decree was based provided that "JOHN MILTON PATRICK and MARY ANN PATRICK shall share, as co-tenants all retirement funds payable to JOHN MILTON PATRICK as a result of his service in the United States Air Force."
The husband had been collecting temporary disability retirement pay from the Air Force since 1977. In 1980, the husband was retired from the Air Force and from thereon received permanent disability retirement pay under 10 U.S.C.S. sec. 1201 (Law. Co-op. 1979). The husband gave the wife her half of these payments until 1982 when he sent her a proposed amended settlement agreement reducing her interest to $500 per month. She refused to sign the amended agreement, and he thereafter refused to pay her anything.
The wife filed a motion to hold the husband in contempt, to correct the settlement agreement to specify "disability retirement funds" rather than "retirement funds," or to enforce the original agreement as it existed. The husband answered that he had not agreed to divide benefits related to disability, but only benefits based on length of service. The husband further answered that disability pay is not community property under Texas law which is subject to division, nor is it subject to division under 10 U.S.C.S. sec. 1408 (Law. Co-op. Supp.1985).
At trial to the court, the judge made an unequivocal oral finding from the bench that the parties had agreed to divide the benefits the husband was receiving at the time of divorce, which was disability pay. However, the judge expressed doubts as to whether federal law permitted division of disability benefits and he asked the parties to brief that point. Seven months later, the judge signed a final order denying the wife all requested relief. Since there is no written finding of fact which contradicts his oral finding, we will not imply a contradictory finding in order to support the judgment. Instead, we conclude that the judge felt compelled by federal law to deny relief to the wife in spite of the agreement to divide the benefits. Further, we believe the evidence conclusively established that the parties intended to divide the disability benefits, and the trial judge would have been in error if he had failed to so find.
The wife complains in her first point of error that the trial court erred in not entering judgment for a money amount against the husband for one-half of the benefits he has received and has not shared. We agree.
Texas law had traditionally held that military retirement benefits earned during marriage, including disability retirement benefits under 10 U.S.C.S. sec. 1201, were community property subject to division upon divorce. 1 Busby v. Busby, 457 S.W.2d 551, 554 (Tex.1970); McGinty v McGinty, 592 S.W.2d 34, 35 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1979, writ dism'd).
The husband in this case correctly points out that these decisions were overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981) which held that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brinkley v. Brinkley, 0410-86-2
...of federal disability benefits due to the husband and is violative of federal policy may be distinguishable. See id.; Patrick v. Patrick, 693 S.W.2d 52 (Tex.Ct.App.1985); Campbell v. Campbell, 474 So.2d 1339 (La.Ct.App.1985); Villasenor v. Villasenor, 134 Ariz. 476, 657 P.2d 889 (Ct.App.198......
-
Lambert v. Lambert
...also Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 109 S.Ct. 2023, 104 L.Ed.2d 675 (1989); Repash v. Repash, 148 Vt. 70, 528 A.2d 744 (1987); Patrick v. Patrick, 693 S.W.2d 52 (Tex.Ct.App.1985). In addition, V.A. benefits, unlike military disability retirement pay, are nonassignable, are exempt from the claims of......
-
Wallace v. Fuller
...no writ) ("We conclude that the military disability retirement pay is divisible community property.") with Patrick v. Patrick, 693 S.W.2d 52, 54 (Tex.App.1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ("10 U.S.C.S. § 1408 [Former Spouses' Protection Act] ... expressly exempted from division disability retirement......
-
Patrick v. Patrick
...OPINION HARRY HOPKINS, Justice. This is the second time this matter has been before this court. See Patrick v. Patrick, 693 S.W.2d 52 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The first time we reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded with instructions. Pursuant thereto t......
-
§ 12.03 Military Longevity and Disability Retirement
...King v. King, 386 N.W.2d 562 (Mich. App. 1986). Minnesota: Sward v. Sward, 410 N.W.2d 442 (Minn. App. 1987). Texas: Patrick v. Patrick, 693 S.W.2d 52 (Tex. Civ. App. 1985). Wisconsin: Pfeil v. Pfeil, 115 Wis.2d 502, 341 N.W.2d 699 (Wis. App. 1983). To these courts, McCarty and USFSPA would ......