Kelly v. Kelly

2003 WY 133, 78 P.3d 220, 2003 Wyo. LEXIS 161, 2003 WL 22411501
CourtWyoming Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 23, 2003
Docket02-175
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 2003 WY 133 (Kelly v. Kelly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wyoming Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kelly v. Kelly, 2003 WY 133, 78 P.3d 220, 2003 Wyo. LEXIS 161, 2003 WL 22411501 (Wyo. 2003).

Opinion

HILL, Chief Justice.

[T1] Appellant, Roberta Kelly (wife), seeks review of an order of the district court dividing the military pension due Appellee, Gary Kelly (husband). It is wife's contention that the district court erred in dividing the pension benefits, We will reverse and remand with directions that the district court conform its order in a manner consistent with this opinion.

ISSUE

[¶2] Wife states this issue:

Did the court err in applying the number of 25 years as the denominator in the formula for determining [wife's] propor *221 tionate share of [husband's] military pension?

Husband offers this modification of that issue:

Did the court have sufficient evidence to support the finding of fact contained in the Order Granting Defendant's Petition to modify the Decree of Divorce.

FACTS

[¶3] The parties were married on May 10, 1971, and were divorced on November 18, 1992. As a part of the property settlement, the district court awarded wife a portion of husband's military pension to be effective when he retired from military service. Husband first became associated with the United States military on July 10, 1969, when he joined the Wyoming Army National Guard. On February 15, 1988, he became a part of the Active Guard and Reserve Program (AGR), and all of his military time was consolidated for the purpose of establishing a 20-year retirement period for the AGR Program. That retirement triggered a provision of the divorce decree that provided for a division of his military retirement. In this respect the decree provided:

The court finds that Gary Eugene Kelly has been a member of the United States Army since February 15, 1988.... The court further finds that during said active and creditable service [wife] and [husband] were married nine years. That the court orders the Secretary of the Army by and through its finance office to, beginning on the date that Gary Eugene Kelly begins receiving his military retirement, to pay directly to Roberta Renee Kelly an amount of money pursuant to the following formula:
9 x 50% = Wife's share Total No. yrs. of service
Said payments will be calculated as if [husband] was a major at the time of retirement even though he may be of higher rank. Any increase in rank after this decree of divorcee which represents an increase in pension benefits shall all belong to [husband]. Cost of living increases for a major from the date of divorce to retirement shall be included to calculate [wife's] share of retirement. Said payments shall continue until the date of death of Gary Eugene Kelly or the date of death of Roberta Renee Kelly, whichever comes first.
Said payments under this Judgment and Decree shall be considered a division of property and not as alimony. That this Judgment and Order is meant to comply with the requirements of 10 USCS Section 1408.
In the event this paragraph is deemed to not comply with requirements established by the U.S. Army to divide retirement benefits or for any other reason, this court retains jurisdiction to modify these provisions.

[T4] As it turns out, the military was unable to divide husband's pension without further guidance from the district court. 1 On May 30, 2002, the district court issued an order attempting to clarify the division of husband's pension. That order provided:

1. The cited provision of the original decree is indisputably a property settlement in an unappealed divorce action and is res judicata as it meets every element of that test.
2. The portion of the decree which purports to "retain jurisdiction" is ineffective under the law of Wyoming as the Court cannot bestow upon itself continuing jurisdiction the law does not otherwise allow.
8. The parties do agree, though not through a formal stipulation, that the numerator in the retirement formula set forth in paragraph 4 of the decree is incorrect and should reflect ten (10) years instead of nine (9) years of marriage during creditable service.
*222 4. The evidence and testimony presented makes clear what the total number of years of service is, twenty-five (25).
5. Paragraph 4 of the decree clearly incorporates the requirements of federal law as it is applied through the rules and regulations of the United States Military.
6. The Court retained not jurisdiction to modify, but instead the power to clarify and interpret its own rulings. To that limited extent, a motion to modify can, and in this cireumstance, should be treated as a pleading requesting clarification.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for modification of divorce shall be and same is hereby considered by this Court a request for clarification and interpretation of the Court's ruling in the original decree, and as such the plaintiff's motion for dismissal is rendered moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the face of the United States Army's refusal or inability to divide the property in accordance with paragraph 4 without clarification, paragraph 4 of the original decree is hereby clarified and interpreted to reflect the proper formula for use by the United States Army in determining the wife's share of the retirement should include a numerator of ten (10) years, and a denominator of twenty-five (25) years. The reminder of Paragraph 4 and the remainder of the formula shall not in any way be affected by this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Unites States Army through the Department of Defense or other bureau or finance office shall pay to the wife her lawful retirement share utilizing the original order and this clarification.

[¶5] Husband's military orders dated November 29, 2001, released him from active duty and placed him on the retired list effective February 28, 2002, at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel (05). Those orders contain, inter alia, this information:

Vol retirement: 20 years, 01 months, 19 days
Section 1405; 21 years, 01 months, 07 days
Basic pay: 25 years, 10 months, 28 days

DISCUSSION

[¶6] In his treatise on Family Law and Practice, Professor Rutkin provides this guidance for the instant cireumstances:

The court may order a definite dollar amount to be paid or may choose a more complex formula. Using a percentage allows an automatic escalator for inflation. A proposed formula to be used when dividing pension as marital property is as follows:
Number of years of active duty x Number of years of marriage ' amount of ret. pay

4 Arnold H. Rutkin, Family Law and Practice, § 48.14, esp. 48.14[8] (20083); also see 1 Elizabeth Williams, Marital Property Law, § 10.05 (Rev. 2nd ed.2003).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wendy L. Stone v. Daryl D. Stone
2023 WY 21 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2023)
Snodgrass v. Snodgrass
297 S.W.3d 878 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2009)
Crayk v. Glover
2008 WY 14 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2008)
Wyland v. Wyland
2006 WY 93 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2006)
Glover v. Crayk
2005 WY 143 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2003 WY 133, 78 P.3d 220, 2003 Wyo. LEXIS 161, 2003 WL 22411501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-kelly-wyo-2003.