Perez v. Perez
| Citation | 587 S.W.2d 671 |
| Decision Date | 25 September 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. B-8298,B-8298 |
| Parties | Roberto D. PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Marian S. PEREZ, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
M. M. Pena, Jr., San Antonio, for petitioner.
Cox, Smith, Smith, Hale & Guenther, Patrick K. Sheehan, San Antonio, for respondent.
The issue in this case is whether military readjustment benefits paid to a husband spouse pursuant to federal statute are community property under Texas law. We hold they are not.
Roberto D. and Marian S. Perez were married on March 9, 1963; they were divorced seven and one-half (71/2) years later on August 25, 1970. At the time of the marriage, Roberto was a first lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve. He served on active duty for sixteen and one-half (161/2) years and attained the rank of major. He was involuntarily released from active duty, effective October 3, 1977.
A member of the Army Reserve who is involuntarily released from active duty, and "who has completed, immediately before his release, at least five years of continuous active duty" is entitled to a readjustment payment. 10 U.S.C. § 687(a). This payment is computed by multiplying his years of active service by two months' basic pay of his grade at the time of release. The payment is limited to an amount not more than two years' basic pay or $15,000, whichever amount is less. Under this formula, Roberto was entitled to and did receive $15,000 in readjustment benefits.
Marian brought this action against Roberto for a division of the readjustment benefits, the status of which was not determined in the divorce proceeding. She claims that a portion of the benefits were acquired during marriage and constituted community property as to which she and Roberto became tenants in common. She seeks partition and an award of her community interest.
The trial court ruled that the readjustment benefits were community property and awarded Marian $2,916.66, based on the six years and five months that the parties were married while Roberto was on active duty. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. 576 S.W.2d 447.
Marian asserts that Roberto's military readjustment benefits are analogous to military retirement benefits. She argues that readjustment benefits are a property right earned during active service and, like retirement benefits earned during marriage, constitute community property. See Cearley v. Cearley, 544 S.W.2d 661 (Tex.1976). We disagree. The legislative history of the federal statute indicates a Congressional intent to provide a non-earned gratuity.
10 U.S.C. § 687 was enacted by Congress in 1956 to alleviate two related problems. The Korean War required the Army to recall a large number of reservists to active duty. After the war many were no longer needed by the military because of their ages. Consequently, Congress concluded "that they should be given an equitable payment upon involuntary release from active military duty to help them again readjust to civilian life." H.R.Rep. No. 1960, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1956).
The related problem was that of encouraging younger officers to remain with the military beyond their original term. It was shown to Congress that the excessive turnover of young reservists was "costly and detrimental to the military forces and the national security." Id. Readjustment benefits were an incentive for qualified reservists to remain on duty. Their doing so would aid the national defense since officers remaining for longer terms would stabilize the officer structure of the military. Senate Rep. No. 2288, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. 3 (1956).
It is further significant that Congress rejected the recommendation that the readjustment benefits be increased in relation to the time of service, that is, to those officers who had served over ten...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Burson
...McCune v. Essig, 199 U.S. 382, 26 S.Ct. 78, 50 L.Ed. 237 (1905); Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.1979); Perez v. Perez, 587 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1979); United States v. Stelter, 567 S.W.2d 797 (Tex.1978); Valdez v. Ramirez, 574 S.W.2d 748 (Tex.1978); Arrambide v. Arrambide, 601......
-
Douglas v. Delp
...capacity during the marriage constitutes his sole-management community property. See TEX. FAM.CODE §§ 3.001, 3.102(a); Perez v. Perez, 587 S.W.2d 671, 673 (Tex.1979). Billy's credit reputation is also his sole-management community property, as it was acquired, at least in part, during the m......
-
Douglas v. Delp
...capacity during the marriage constitutes his sole-management community property. See TEX. FAM. CODE 3.001, 3.102(a); Perez v. Perez, 587 S.W.2d 671, 673 (Tex. 1979). Billy's credit reputation is also his sole-management community property, as it was acquired, at least in part, during the ma......
-
Abernethy v. Fishkin
...176 Cal.App.3d 1152, 222 Cal.Rptr. 644 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 885, 107 S.Ct. 276, 93 L.Ed.2d 252 (1986), and Perez v. Perez, 587 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1979), upon which the husband relies, are inapplicable because these cases involve involuntary separation from military service.15 Beca......
-
§ 7.12 Other Employee Compensation and Fringe Benefits
...Louisiana: Kees v. Kees, 509 So.2d 189 (La. App. 1987). Oklahoma: Davis v. Davis, 87 P.3d 640 (Okla. App. 2003). Texas: Perez v. Perez, 587 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979). [1001] See Davis v. Davis, 87 P.3d 640 (Okla. App. 2004). See also, Wiener v. Wiener, 57 A.D.3d 241, 868 N.Y.S.2d 197 (2008).[1......
-
§ 12.02 Types of Benefits
...1998). See generally, "Comment," 24 Pac. L. J. 1815 (1993).[125] See In re Marriage of Kuzmiak, id.[126] Id. See also, Perez v. Perez, 587 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979).[127] In re Marriage of Crawford, 180 Ariz. 324, 884 P.2d 210 (Ariz. App. 1994).[128] See § 12.03[7] infra. [129] Pub. L. No. 96-......
-
§ 12.01 The Conjunctive and Disjunctive Theories
...Ramsey, 474 S.W.2d 939 (Tex. Civ. App. 1971).[4] See Villasenor v. Villasenor, 134 Ariz. 476, 657 P.2d 889 (1982).[5] See Perez v. Perez, 587 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979).[6] See generally, Reppy, "Conflict of Law Problems in the Division of Marital Property," Chapter 10, in 1 Valuation and Distr......