Thorpe v. Thorpe, 83-501
| Decision Date | 05 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-501,83-501 |
| Citation | 367 N.W.2d 233,123 Wis.2d 424 |
| Parties | Pansy J. THORPE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert G. THORPE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Brennan, Steil, Ryan, Basting & MacDougall, S.C., James E. Welker and William O. Salen, Janesville, for defendant-appellant.
Hansen, Eggers, Berres, Kelley & Blakely, S.C., and Larry J. Eggers, Beloit, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before CANE, P.J., and DEAN and BROWN, JJ.
Robert Thorpe appeals an order requiring him to pay twenty-five percent of his retirement pay to his ex-wife, Pansy, beginning July, 1981. The Thorpes' 1977 judgment of divorce awarded Pansy twenty-five percent of Robert's military pension proceeds "as they are paid." The circuit court set aside the award pursuant to the June 26, 1981, decision of McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981), but later reinstated the award under the 1982 Uniform Services Former Spouses Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1408(c)(1) (1983).
Robert argues that the circuit court lacked authority to modify the property portion of the divorce judgment. He also argues that the 1977 judgment entitles Pansy only to an amount equal to twenty-five percent of his pension payment at the time of the divorce, $202.50 per month. Finally, he argues that the court erred by ordering him to pay retroactive to July, 1981, and not beginning February 8, 1983, the date the award was reinstated. Because the property division may be modified under sec. 806.07, Stats., because the judgment unambiguously requires Robert to pay Pansy twenty-five percent of his pension payment including increases, and because the Uniform Services Former Spouses Protection Act applies to pre-McCarty divorce judgments, we affirm.
The circuit court had authority to modify the property division under sec. 806.07. Although a property division is not subject to the court's continuing jurisdiction and may not be modified based on a change of circumstances under sec. 767.32(1), Stats., sec. 806.07 gives the court discretionary authority to grant relief from the judgment. See Conrad v. Conrad, 92 Wis.2d 407, 413, 284 N.W.2d 674, 677 (1979); see also Tozer v. Tozer, 121 Wis.2d 187, 189, 358 N.W.2d 537, 539 (Ct.App.1984). The subsequent change in the law regarding military pensions provided a basis for the exercise of the court's discretion.
Pansy is entitled to twenty-five percent of Robert's monthly pension payment, including periodic increases. The Thorpes were married in 1954. At the time of the 1977 divorce, Robert was receiving military retirement pay. Robert argues that Pansy is not entitled to a twenty-five percent share of any increases in his pension. He contends that she is limited to $202.50 per month. If this were true, there would have been no reason to express the amount owed to Pansy as a percentage of the proceeds as they are paid. The $202.50 mentioned in the property division only established the initial amount Robert was to pay.
The most difficult issue involves Robert's argument that the circuit court erred by ordering pension payments retroactive to July, 1981. Robert stopped paying after the June 26, 1981, McCarty decision. McCarty held that state courts lack jurisdiction to divide nondisability military retirement pay. In October, 1981, the circuit court concluded that McCarty rendered the division of Robert's military pension improper, thereby sanctioning his termination of payments.
Congress reversed McCarty by enacting the Uniform Services Former Spouses Protection Act. The Act restored the power of state courts to divide pension benefits. 10 U.S.C. § 1408(c)(1) (1983). Under the Act, the circuit court can treat retirement pay...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Gallo, In re
...Flannagan v. Flannagan, 42 Wash.App. 214, 709 P.2d 1247 (1985); Butcher v. Butcher, 357 S.E.2d 226 (W.Va.1987); and Thorpe v. Thorpe, 123 Wis.2d 424, 367 N.W.2d 233 (1985).9 See, e.g., Kabaci v. Kabaci, 373 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Civ.App.1979); Hiscox v. Hiscox, 179 Ind.App. 378, 385 N.E.2d 1166 (......
-
Kendrick v. Kendrick
...465 N.W.2d 483, 486 (S.D.1991); In re Marriage of Bocanegra, 58 Wash.App. 271, 792 P.2d 1263, 1266 (1990); Thorpe v. Thorpe, 123 Wis.2d 424, 367 N.W.2d 233, 234 (1985).10 Root v. Root, 851 P.2d 67, 68 (Alaska 1993); Van Loan v. Van Loan, 116 Ariz. 272, 569 P.2d 214, 216 (1977); Jones v. Ste......
-
Cook v. Cook
...be included by the trial court in the division of the property." Steinke, 126 Wis.2d at 380, 376 N.W.2d 839. In Thorpe v. Thorpe, 123 Wis.2d 424, 367 N.W.2d 233 (Ct.App.1985), the court of appeals affirmed a circuit court's property division of military retired ¶19 According to Professor Gr......
-
IN RE MARRIAGE OF FRANKE v. Franke
...284 N.W.2d 674 (1979); Spankowski v. Spankowski, 172 Wis. 2d 285, 290, 493 N.W.2d 737 (Ct. App. 1992); Thorpe v. Thorpe, 123 Wis. 2d 424, 426, 367 N.W.2d 233 (Ct. App. 1985), even though Wis. Stat. § 767.32(1), which permits revision of certain judgments, does not permit revision or modific......
-
§ 7.10 Pensions
...58 Wash. App. 271, 792 P.2d 1263 (1990). West Virginia: McGee v. McGee, 214 W.Va. 36, 585 S.E.2d 36 (2003). Wisconsin: Thorpe v. Thorpe, 123 Wis.2d 424, 367 N.W.2d 233 (Wis. App. 1985). The marital estate should only share in any COLA to the extent that the pension is marital property. Ther......
-
§ 12.03 Military Longevity and Disability Retirement
...P.2d 602 (1982). With the adoption of the USFSPA, such decrees that became final before McCarty are clearly valid. See Thorpe v. Thorpe, 123 Wis. 2d 424, 367 N.W.2d 233 (Wis. App. 1985). [151] Arizona: Sandoval v. Sandoval, 130 Ariz. 117, 634 P.2d 405 (Ariz. App. 1981). California: Wintriss......